Jim Peterson

[An Act Amend An Act To Incorporate The Bishop Of The Arctic Of The Church Of England In Canada, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent that the House do now proceed to dispose of the bill at all stages, including committee of the whole.

[An Act Amend An Act To Incorporate The Bishop Of The Arctic Of The Church Of England In Canada, April 14th, 1997]

moved that Bill S-15, an act to amend an Act to Incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to bring about some amendments to the act incorporating the bishop of the Arctic for the Anglican church.

By way of background, the Anglican church in Canada was officially founded in 1893, although many of its dioceses had existed prior to Confederation.

Today there are 30 dioceses of the Anglican church in Canada, each one incorporated. The act we are dealing with deals with the diocese of the Arctic, which was incorporated by a federal act of Parliament in 1934.

The diocese of the Arctic covers the Northwest Territories and the northern third of Quebec. It has 51 active parishes, 20 of which have resident Anglican ministers.

Also by way of background, the primate of the Anglican church in Canada is the Most Reverend Michael G. Teers. He is responsible for five Canadian ecclesiastical provinces as they are called under the Anglican church. The archbishop for the ecclesiastical province of Rupert's Land is the Most Reverend Barry Curtis. He is situated in Calgary and the bishop of the diocese of the Arctic, Bishop Christopher Williams, reports to him.

The Anglican church has changed over the years. It now has 15 ordained Inuit clergy. Last year it elected its first Inuk bishop, Paul Idlout, a former member of the RCMP.

The Anglican Church has a history of long and distinguished service to the people of Canada's north. The first missionary who came from England, Reverend E.J. Peck, gave the Inuit of the eastern Arctic their syllabic writing system which is in use today. The church continues to minister to the spiritual and other needs of the people of the north and has undertaken tremendous work in translating hymns, prayers and scriptures into many of the local languages.

I am very pleased today that we have the opportunity to salute the work of the Anglican church in Canada's north and to bring its active incorporation into line with modern needs.

Under the present act of 1934 the investment powers of the Anglican church in the north are very limited. It can invest only in the bonds of the Canadian or provincial governments or the Government of Great Britain and some mortgages on land. It is facing severe financial trials in these difficult times because of its immense responsibilities in that area. We as members of Parliament can help it to have greater investment powers and hopefully a greater income from its invested moneys in order to carry out its worthwhile work.

[Committees Of The House, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the ninth report of the finance committee of the House of Commons.

This represents major amendments worked out in consultation with the industry to Bill C-82, dealing with Canada's financial institutions. This is the culmination of a process put in place well over a year ago by the Minister of State for International Financial Institutions, one in which submissions were asked for from interested parties which resulted in a white paper. This white paper was the subject of extensive public discussions and consultations last fall and the amendments resulting from that process and the changes are included in this report.

This has been an excellent process. We recommend it to other ministers and we congratulate the minister of state for this process and the results of it. I would also like to thank all members of the committee from all parties who have worked so diligently on this matter.

[Excise Tax Act, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound for what I think is a very important question.

I agree with him that from a strict tax policy point of view the ideal tax would be the simplest. It would apply to everything, no exemptions. That would mean a lower rate. For example, if the GST were to apply to basic groceries it could probably be reduced by about 0.7 per cent. Everything in the country would have a slightly lower tax rate.

In asking this question the member has displayed the type of integrity and intellectual honesty which we in the finance committee have to come respect over the last three years. I commend him for this. The problem is from a tax policy point of view. It might be right but Canadians at this point are not yet prepared to accept that the tax should apply to things such as basic groceries, certain medicines, drugs and health devices.

I do not mind that debate being held. I commend the hon. member for bringing this forward but at this time I do not think Canadians are ready to accept that type of tax reform. We are having enough difficulty getting the harmonized tax in place. Maybe that is something that can be contemplated down the road.

[Excise Tax Act, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. Albert for his question.

It is very simple. Canada is a difficult country to govern, as we all know, with its various jurisdictions. When the members of the finance committee recommended that the 10 different sales taxes be replaced by a single national value added tax we contemplated two things. We did a lot of work on this.

We contemplated and recommended a tax that could be brought in one province or two provinces at a time. In other words, not all provinces had to accede to the new regime at the same time. Second, although it makes a more complicated tax, provinces did not have to come in all at the same rate.

Over time I can see provinces coming in at different rates. For example, Premier Harris had promised before the last Ontario election that Ontario recognized the incredible advantages to that province of having a harmonized sales tax system. Ontario could probably harmonize at about 13 to 14 per cent instead of 15 per cent and be revenue neutral. Why would it come in at a higher rate?

The tax system in place, as the member for St. Albert well knows because he has a strong accounting background, envisages the possibility of different rates. It would be easier to administer if the rate is the same in every province and maybe over years, after all the provinces have acceded to the tax, the rates will come together. That will be a further step in the process of simplification.

When the member goes back to the perceived injustices of the national energy program of the 1980s, why does he not talk about the billions of dollars of tax grants that were given to make the tar sands available just recently? Is he ashamed of that? Why does he not talk about the millions on millions of dollars that we are giving to the farmers in western Canada, the western diversification fund, in helping them transport their goods to market or to diversify and get away from their dependence on some of the funds they have had?

What bothers me most about this debate is that we can differ as parliamentarians about the HST. But when members deliberately set out to create a balance sheet where they do not put in all the figures on what provinces are receiving from Confederation, they are trying to be divisive and set provinces against provinces, rather than recognizing that we are so fortunate to be in this country.

This country is diverse, with different economic circumstances from coast to coast. But part of being a nation is to help those regions from time to time with things like equalization and perhaps special breaks that will help them with their resources, with their transportation needs or whatever. That is the essence to me of being a country.

I do not shy away from these programs which are entered into in the spirit of helping those regions that need it most. This, to me, is what this nation is about.

[Excise Tax Act, March 17th, 1997]

Why is that? Because it has a tax other provinces do not have. It has a tax on its energy royalties. It gets a tremendous tax revenue out of its energy which no other province does.

In spite of that, what did the federal government do recently? It gave tax incentives which would allow the tarsands to develop. It amounted to millions upon million of dollars. Did they complain about that type of grant not being offered to other provinces? No. They cannot have it both ways.

I do not apologize for one minute that this government is in the position of making loans to enterprises which are employing Canadians, creating exports, building planes and putting us at the leading edge of the global economy.

This is a responsible use of federal power. Let us not shrink for one minute from the fact that in these areas we do have leading edge technology. Our companies are world leaders because we have a partnership, not through grants but through loans.

Let me return to the issue of the harmonized sales tax. We have looked as a finance committee and as a Parliament at this issue for a long period of time. Our committee had the privilege in 1993-94 of looking at alternatives to the goods and services tax. The thing that we found most compelling was that Canada is the only country in the world that had not just one retail sales tax but ten different retail sales taxes. Canada was the only country in the world that had more than one retail sales tax.

What did that mean to Canadians? It meant that we were supporting as taxpayers ten bureaucracies instead of one. It meant that businesses had to assume the incredible cost of complying with not just one sales tax regime but ten different regimes. Some European countries have a value added tax. Canadian consumers did not have the benefit of tax included pricing. The price they saw advertised on the item was not what they had to pay when they went to the cash register.

One witness appeared before us, among many, who put on the table $40,000 in cancelled receipts from irate customers who, when they got to the checkout counter and found they had to pay more than the price shown, decided not to buy the item. That is the phenomenon of sticker shock or counter shock.

We have found through extensive surveying and working with consumer groups that consumers want to know what they have to pay when they get to the cash register and take the money out of their wallets. Overwhelmingly, 86 per cent of Canadians surveyed on the issue of tax inclusive pricing for the three Atlantic provinces involved wanted tax inclusive pricing. Why should they not? Why should merchants not want to give it to them? After all, the price they see is the price they should have to pay.

Another advantage of the harmonized tax system goes to our business competitiveness and our capacity to create jobs. Today in Canada businesses are paying about $6 billion in provincial sales taxes on their business inputs. These are things which they must purchase in order to carry on business, such as a car, a computer, furniture and so on.

Why should Canadian businesses have to pay this type of tax burden when their American counterparts do not?

This is why businesses in the three provinces of Atlantic Canada were paying $580 million in provincial taxes on their business inputs. This made them non-competitive in many cases with their American counterparts. They should not have to pay provincial sales taxes on their business inputs. It is against all good tax policy.

Therefore this was one of the great advantages of this harmonized sales tax. No longer would Atlantic provinces have their businesses at this competitive disadvantage when it came to creating jobs.

Through the harmonization process they have gone through, they will have these tax savings. They will be able to pass much of those savings, if not all of them, on to consumers in Atlantic Canada. Those businesses will have a competitive advantage over businesses in Ontario and other provinces where the provinces still tax their business inputs in terms of creating jobs and being competitive.

These are some of the compelling reasons why we need harmonization and why no one in this House has spoken against harmonization. Not one witness before our finance committee spoke against the harmonized regime.

The member for Medicine Hat was quite right in suggesting that tax inclusive pricing was a bit of a problem. If a national retailer based outside Atlantic Canada had to publish another catalogue showing the real price people would have to pay, or if someone had to retag the price of goods, that would be an added cost.

Let us be very clear. There were some added costs to businesses that were going to be doing business in Atlantic Canada but were not getting the benefit of the input tax credits because they did not purchase any of their business inputs in Atlantic Canada.

If someone had a business based outside the three harmonized provinces and they were not spending money in that area, or very little money, because what they were doing was running a retail operation, bringing the goods in, selling them and not making a lot of purchases there, they were not going to get the benefits. All witnesses realize this. They would not participate in that $580 some million of tax savings per year. It is quite understandable that businesses that were going to have the added costs from tax inclusive pricing that were not offset by the tax savings on their business inputs were going to complain.

I have no problem with that. They were quite right in doing it. However, for the hon. member for Medicine Hat to say that what the Senate did was create a victory against tax inclusive pricing is wrong. We were not going to take the chance that we could not get this bill through on time.

The Senate threatened to hold it up beyond the implementation date of April 1 if we were not capable of doing something about tax inclusive pricing. Therefore, we said maybe we have to go along with that because what is really critical to Atlantic Canada is that we get the harmonized tax in place, even without tax inclusive pricing.

The Senate did not reject tax inclusive pricing as a fundamental concept of this tax. It said that as soon as provinces with 51 per cent of the Canadian population are on board, it will then insist on tax inclusive pricing for all provinces.

This is an acceptance, even by the Conservative majority in the Senate, of this concept of tax inclusive pricing. It recognize it is good for consumers. We have held all along that it is important to consumers to know exactly what they will pay.

This is supported by not only the polls of consumers but by the Consumers' Association of Canada. It has has argued very strongly in front of our committee and Parliament that we need the concept of tax inclusive pricing. Telling people in advance how much it is going to cost them out of their wallet is just fairness.

I regret that we are not able to proceed with the tax inclusive pricing. However, let me be clear. We were not dogmatic about how it went into effect. We in the finance committee, along with the government, suggested many compromises that would have softened the burden of tax inclusive pricing for most businesses. For example, we told businesses they only needed to have one catalogue, not two, if they were a national advertiser. We told them they could advertise at one price throughout the whole country but to put a little disclaimer somewhere in the catalogue stating that provincial sales taxes are not included.

We suggested to businesses that they did not have to reticket every item that was in inventory. They could go to other things such as rack pricing, bin pricing and dual ticketing on items that were there. For certain items they could even have certain types of signage which would indicate what the prices were. In other words, we suggested that there were many ways we could achieve benefits for consumers of tax inclusive pricing and reduce the cost from those which were originally contemplated and would apply under a fully harmonized, hardline, tax inclusive pricing regime.

We were working with business groups. We worked with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It was working with its members to come back to us in order to find ways to implement the tax in such a way that the burdens were reduced and the benefits for consumers were still there.

I am pleased that we have proceeded with the harmonization in these three provinces. I think this is just a step on the journey to achieving a fully harmonized sales tax system throughout Canada. It is inevitable that it will come. Taxpayers do not want to support the duplication and overlap of now eight different systems as opposed to ten. It is just stupid. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business castigated us and asked us when we were finally going to get our act together as politicians, federal and provincial, and do what was right for the people to help make businesses competitive and help get rid of the unnecessary costs. We are on that road and we will do it.

When we brought in the concept of the Canada Health Act there were only two provinces that initially signed on. It took some years before all the other provinces agreed to go along with it. This is what I envisage in terms of the future of it. No one is arguing against that concept and the inevitability that we should have one sales tax system throughout Canada based on the GST model, and this is what we will achieve.

[Excise Tax Act, March 17th, 1997]

Are they advocating that no used goods should be subject to the GST? Are they saying that services should not be subject to the GST? Do they want a level playing field or do they not? They cannot have it both ways.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat made great issue about compensation being paid to the three Atlantic provinces over a three-year period. He said it was a breach of equal treatment for provinces.

Let us take a look at it. Every province that wants to harmonize the GST at a lower rate and loses money will be entitled to compensation. That is what we call equality of opportunity for all provinces.

We must remember the combined sales tax rates in Newfoundland were about 20 per cent. In the other two provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they were about 19 per cent. These are punitive rates. Why should these provinces have to pay outlandish rates of taxes just because they are the poorest provinces? We are pleased they were able to benefit consumers by getting their combined rates of tax down to about 15 per cent. I am proud of that.

If the provincial governments lose money because of it, I am not upset at all if some compensation is to be paid over a three-year period to help those provincial coffers adjust to that temporary loss of revenue.

Members will say it was not fair. Have we not in other circumstances helped other provinces?

The member talked about Alberta, which has the lowest rate of tax. There is no provincial sales tax in Alberta. Why is that?

[Excise Tax Act, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my friend and colleague from Medicine Hat.

Let me clear up a few misunderstandings. Are Reform Party members advocating that no used goods should be subject to the GST? Are they saying that people who sell used goods should be favoured as opposed to people who sell new goods? Is this what they are trying to prejudice?

[Committees Of The House, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

It deals with Bill C-70 which does two things. It makes a number of changes, clarifications and amendments to the GST. Much more important, it is the first step in creating a national harmonized sales tax replacing all 10 existing sales taxes with one. This is a first step in that direction.

I thank the many witnesses who appeared before us and made presentations. I thank members of all three parties, including the member of Beaver River who is giving me all her attention right now, who worked in an assiduous and constructive way with us. I thank, as always, the staff of the House of Commons who again has been exemplary. I have the honour to table this report, in both official languages.

[Committees Of The House, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the committee's report on Bill C-70, which harmonizes the GST with the provincial sales taxes in the three Atlantic provinces and contains about one hundred amendments.

I would like very much at this time to thank members of the committee from all parties who worked so diligently and very intensely over the holidays before the House came back. I would also like to thank our staff who were splendid as always.

I would ask that this bill harmonizing the tax in the three Atlantic provinces with the GST be tabled at this moment.