Chris Axworthy

[Social Spending, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Last week in Paris the minister stated that the government would not cut old age security payments. He said: "This helps to protect the purchasing power of Canada's seniors and adds a measure of stability to their income". I am glad to hear that.

With the cuts in the last budget and the proposed cuts that the Minister of Finance has indicated, can the minister explain why the rationale for protecting seniors' pensions is not applicable to younger Canadians who cannot find a job and who are trying to feed and clothe their children? Why is not protecting their purchasing power and adding a measure of security to their incomes reason to protect them from cuts?

[D-Day, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today allied forces stormed the beaches at Normandy marking the beginning of the end of World War II.

Some 150,000 troops took part in D-Day including 14,000 Canadians. Every province and territory of Canada was represented on land, in the air and at sea. All wore a similar shoulder badge with "Canada" on it and stood together not as westerners, French Canadians or maritimers, but as Canadians. They fought for freedom, for democracy and for the future generations many of them would never see.

We celebrate them today and pay tribute to all who played a role in the allied victory. We celebrate also the opportunity victory brought to build a better Canada, one free from pain and suffering for ourselves and for future generations. We continue in earnest toward this end and we do so with tremendous gratitude for those who made it possible.

On behalf of the citizens of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing and on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues in this House, I would like to express sincere thanks to all the women and men who played a role in D-Day and in ensuring that freedom reigned.

[Interpretation Act, June 2nd, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act to amend the Interpretation Act (convention on the rights of the child).

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to accompany what is essentially the introduction of a children's bill of rights. This bill would require the Government of Canada to interpret all legislation in harmony with the UN declaration on the rights of the child which Canada was instrumental in engineering and has already signed.

We will remember that the House unanimously voted in 1989 to end child poverty by the year 2000. Since that time child poverty has increased. We will remember the UN declaration on the rights of the child. This bill will ensure that Canada will enforce the concept that Canadian children be free from exploitation and abuse, that government action should be interpreted with regard to children in the best interests of the child, that children should have access to child care, health care and a standard of living that at minimum meets basic needs, and that disabled children should receive the same level of dignity and opportunities as other children.

It is important if we are going to put words into action to ensure that commitments Canada has made on behalf of its children are enforced by the government. At the moment this is sadly not the case. The position of Canadian children is getting worse.

I hope that along with my colleagues from Yukon, from Burnaby-Kingsway, from Kamloops and also from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who all indicated their support for this bill, we will see some action in this regard.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Canada Petroleum Resources Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on March 7, I raised with the Minister of Human Resources Development the concern that Canadians have at the breakneck speed with which social security reform is taking place in Canada.

I am pleased to see that the provincial governments have put a break on that breakneck speed and have slowed the process down to give people in Canada more of an opportunity to look at the implications.

I also raised with him the concern that one in three Canadians have that the main aim of his social policy reform is to in fact cut social program expenditures. He responded that the objective of reform was to get programs to meet needs. This is a noble goal but one which the government is falling far short on because we have in Canada 1.3 million children living in poverty. We have 1.6 million Canadians on unemployment insurance, 2.4 million Canadians on social assistance and who knows how many Canadians underemployed, working part time when they want to work full time, not making full use of their qualifications.

We have a crisis in unemployment in this country which the government is sitting back and watching, preferring instead to focus on social policy reform and not dealing with the matter at its core which is to make this economy function effectively for, as I say, those over four million Canadians who are without work and who want work.

It is clear, as everyone in this House will know, that the best social policy is a job. Yet we are still seeing unemployment rates hovering over 11 per cent. Recent studies show that if half a million more Canadians were working full time, provincial and federal governments between them would collect approximately $12 billion in additional revenue on top of savings to unemployment insurance. Clearly if we get Canada working again the problems about social programs become much less significant.

Even dealing with some of the government's successes in terms of providing 80,000 young Canadians with job opportunities, that still leaves over 320,000 unable to find work; 320,000 of our future, our young people in Canada not able to find work.

There are other ways the government seems to refuse to pursue. For example, there are opportunities to raise tax dollars from the richest in our country and from corporations. Indeed, over $140 billion in corporate profits have gone untaxed in the last nine years. If Exxon in Canada had paid its 1992-93 deferred taxes $600,000 child care spaces would have been created. Imagine what we could have done about getting Canadians back to work through that process.

We know that half the government's debt is due to tax breaks and loopholes for wealthy Canadians. Statistics Canada has told us that. We know that 44 per cent is due to high interest rates. Only 6 per cent is due to program spending and only half of that from social program spending.

However, the government attacks just 3 per cent social program spending rather than attacking the core problem which is that Canada does not work for 4.5 million Canadians.

Also we could look at a wealth taxes, we could look at more effective tax auditing and we could even look at lowering the limits for RRSPs if we were looking to balance some of the problems that Canadians face and if we were looking to respond with adequate social programs.

We now have confusion within the government. Once the Prime Minister said that there would be no more need for budget cuts, now he has agreed with his finance minister that there will be need for budget cuts. They look to be severe budget cuts in order to respond to the way this government is looking at dealing with the deficit which is the same way all Conservative and Liberal governments across the country have dealt with it, which is to attack the most vulnerable in society.

I think what we should do is slow down the speed. We should give those who support the least well off in society the opportunity to develop adequate-

[Income Security, April 22nd, 1994]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of ensuring that the reform of the tax system is harmonized and integrated with review and reform of the Canadian system of social security as a whole with a view to most efficiently realizing the fundamental objective of income security for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, my motion is seconded by the member for Regina-Lumsden.

It calls on the House to agree that the government should consider the advisability of ensuring that the reform of the tax system is integrated and harmonized with the review and reform of the Canadian system of social security.

My motion has three themes to this point. The first is that our tax system needs to ensure that we have the revenue needed to provide for the social programs we have deemed necessary so as to ensure that all Canadians can live at a reasonable level of security and dignity.

The second aspect of this motion revolves around the use of the tax system in social policy administration. The tax system has been used over the years as an integral way of ensuring the administration of social policy through various different measures, tax credits and so on.

The third aspect of the motion deals with the issue of the unfair tax burdens and tax implications on Canadians who are moving off social programs into the workforce. I will deal with each of these separately.

To date, the focus of the government as it looks at social programs, as it was for the previous Progressive Conservative government and following the wishes of the Reform Party, has been to focus on cuts to expenditures and programs, cuts to people, cuts to those most vulnerable, the poorest in society. That has been the focus of the government's attention to social programs.

It is worth pointing out that the Bloc Quebecois has made many important contributions against that approach, arguing as the New Democratic Party would, for a more holistic, a more people oriented approach to social policy reform. I thank the members of the Bloc Quebecois for that.

The government has placed no emphasis on solving the problem. The problem is that the economy simply does not work for more than four million Canadians because these people do not work in the paid workforce, not through any fault of their own but because the government has not made a priority of job creation. Neither did the government before it.

No emphasis has been placed on making the economy work, giving Canadians the opportunity for the jobs they so sorely need in order to feed themselves and their families and make a contribution to our society. As a result of this, we have seen an increase in social program payments because of the large numbers of Canadians who have been unable to find work.

In addition, there has been no emphasis by the government or any emphasis from the previous government on ensuring a progressive, fair tax system even though this is recognized in the budget. Indeed one of the budget quotes from the government says that the fundamental basis of a sound tax system is the reality and perception that everybody pays his or her fair share.

That may be the perception but clearly it is not something the government has seen fit to do anything about. We continue with a tax system which is unfair to most ordinary Canadians because it loads the tax burden on middle and lower income Canadians while allowing those who are wealthiest and our largest corporations essentially to get a free ride.

We need some action in a holistic way to deal with our social programs. They are there for those who need them. Those who need them have grown in numbers because our economy is simply not working for them. We also have a tax system which unfairly burdens middle and lower income Canadians. Essentially we have seen no action from the government on this measure even though in opposition they frequently criticized the Conservative government for its regressive tax changes.

I would just like to point out too that Canadians are concerned about the speed of social policy reform and its implications. They are concerned the government is focusing only on cuts to social programs, cuts in the order of billions of dollars, with inadequate consultation and inadequate consideration of the major impact this will have both on the provinces but more important, on those Canadians who need those programs.

In spite of the advice to the contrary from the government's own advisers, it continues to make ad hoc social program changes while trying to consider the overall picture.

One member of the task force of the Minister of Human Resources Development, Mr. Ken Battle, proposes a moratorium on changes to social programs and changes to the income tax system until a comprehensive in-depth review of those programs has been conducted. That advice of the government's own adviser is not being taken.

Going to the tax system itself, we have seen nine years of Conservative government focusing on cutting expenditures to deal with the debt and deficit problems that Canada faces. We see governments across the country, Conservative and Liberal governments, focusing in that same way. We see New Democratic governments balancing budgets without cuts to social programs.

My own province of Saskatchewan cut the deficit from the highest per capita to the lowest in three years, the very best deficit cutting record of any province or any government in the country, according to all the reports of financial managers who are not normally friends of the New Democratic Party. In addition it has increased spending on social programs and health care.

It is not necessary to attack the deficit by attacking those who are most vulnerable in society. The New Democratic Government of Saskatchewan has proven that to all Canadians. Anybody who would rather live in Alberta with Ralph Klein's slash and burn deficit cutting than in Saskatchewan is probably somebody making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in income.

The debt as we know was not caused by social programs. Statistics Canada has indicated many times that half the debt Canada has faced since 1975, which is when the debt became a major problem, was due to tax breaks and tax loopholes for wealthy individual Canadians or about 50 per cent. Forty-four per cent was due to high interest rates; only 6 per cent to increases in government spending, and of that 6 per cent only 3 per cent was for social programs spending.

The problem has not been social programs spending. It has been a weak tax system, a tax system that has favoured the rich. After all, the rich have their own political parties in the House that have served them well by providing them with this very favourable tax situation.

Surely, if we are to attack the problem, we need to attack the regressiveness of our tax system. More than $140 billion in corporate taxes, for example, have gone untaxed in the last nine years. Eighty corporations each owe $100 million or more in deferred taxes. Workers often pay more taxes than the companies they work for. New Democrats and Canadians think it is time the government at least treated corporations as they treat other Canadians.

Why not impose a minimum corporate tax? Even Ronald Reagan imposed a minimum corporate tax. Why not charge interest on deferred taxes which are outstanding on the part of these corporations? Why not pursue more aggressively those companies that are deliberately avoiding paying their taxes?

Let us look at one example of the implications of the unfair tax system. If Imperial Oil had paid its 1992 deferred tax bill of $1.58 billion, we could have created 600,000 child care spaces in the country or we could have built 54,000 social housing units. The costs to Canadians are significant as a result of a tax system which favours the rich. It also ensures that middle and lower income Canadians pay an unfair proportion of taxes and that there are not enough resources available to deal with the social program costs required as a result of the fact the economy is not working for four million Canadians.

Another example which we know well in Canada is that of the family trust. It is an example in which the richest Canadian families are able to escape taxation while others have to go to the food bank to beg for food. Estimates indicate that over a billion dollars a year are lost to the federal treasury as a result of giving Canada's richest families a tax break that enables them to hide their tax benefits.

This tax benefit was introduced by the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau and was extended by the government of Prime Minister Mulroney.

It is an outrage that Canadians are faced with a tax system which gives the richest Canadians huge tax breaks while it forces the poorest Canadians to go to food banks to find food.

There are many other tax loopholes that could be eliminated. We have seen some attention in the government's budget paid to the business entertainment tax deduction. More could be done there. Another half a billion dollars could be saved as a result of closing that loophole. I do not see why my constituents who cannot afford to get to Toronto to watch a Blue Jays game should subsidize business people who are entertaining their friends in skyboxes at the SkyDome. There is a clear inequity in that process.

We should eliminate special tax breaks enjoyed by real estate developers. To give real estate developers tax breaks on an imagined depreciation of their assets when in fact their assets are increasing in value is a perverse gift to the richest of Canadians. We see very large wealthy development companies paying no or very low rates of corporate tax.

We should eliminate the tax breaks for corporate mergers and acquisitions. There is absolutely no gain to the average Canadian there. These three tax breaks to the very wealthy would save another billion dollars for Canadians and provide more resources for the social programs we need.

I could go on. We could tax wealth. We could clamp down on tax cheaters. As I mentioned we could put a minimum corporate tax on corporations to ensure they at least pay something.

I have made my point that our tax system is unfair, balanced in favour of the wealthy who have had political parties and continue to have political parties in the House working for them, and unfairly harsh on middle and lower income Canadians who have seen their taxes increase significantly over the last few years.

It is time, if Liberal words mean anything and if Liberal words in opposition mean anything, to make some changes to ensure that Canadians do not see this matter continue.

Briefly my second point is with regard to the use of the tax system for social policy implementation. It has a long tradition in Canada. It can work well if those tax changes are progressive. However, it works badly if those tax changes are regressive.

Mr. Ken Battle, an adviser of the Minister of Human Resources Development, has pointed out over the years that progressive changes to social programs and tax policy have been undermined consistently by regressive changes under the past government. The only significant change in the first budget of the Liberal government was to get rid of the lifetime capital gains exemption. There is perhaps $12 billion lost to the treasury as a result of high tax deductions for RRSPs which only the wealthy can take advantage of and child care expenses that favour well-off taxpayers.

We have also seen how our tax system has impacted on our social programs in a way in which most Canadians have not realized until well after the fact. The minister's own adviser, Ken Battle, calls this politics of stealth. We are seeing that same politics of stealth carrying on under this government, although its members criticized it extensively when in opposition.

We see universal child and elderly benefits no longer existing as a result of the clawbacks imposed on old age pensions and family allowances. We see a replacement of family allowances based on an income tested child tax benefit, all things that were criticized by the Liberals in opposition, all things they continue to allow to take place in government.

Lastly we see the impact of partial deindexation which is catching ever more lower income Canadians in its net, excluding them from social programs and placing them in ever higher tax brackets.

It is necessary for the Minister of Human Resources Development, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance, to take charge of the issue to make sure that tax policy as it impacts on social policy is progressive, helpful to those who are experiencing difficulties in our society, and contributes, as the government's own words indicate, to a fairer tax system so that we can all be satisfied the tax system is fair and that we are paying our fair share as is everyone else.

My last point deals with something about which there has been much loose talk.

As with the previous government, this government is fond of talking about deterrents to work which can be addressed by reducing the social programs for people who are not working. The biggest deterrent to work, as every Canadian will say, is that there are not enough jobs with adequate wages. If we address that problem we also address not only our deficit problem but our social programs. We would simply not have as many Canadians drawing on social program expenditures.

There are significant practical problems to be addressed dealing with moving off social programs, social assistance or unemployment insurance, and into the workforce. This has been described as being a welfare roll. Thousands of welfare recipients each year are blocked from moving into the workforce because of the adverse economic consequences that would give rise to, the so-called welfare taxback in which those who move off social programs experience the very highest marginal rate of income tax in the country. Either 100 per cent or something very close to it is taxed back from them on earnings they make as they attempt to move from social assistance to the workforce.

Many Canadians who are on the verge of moving from social assistance to work and are able to earn a bit of money on social assistance lose a dollar of welfare assistance for every dollar they earn. That is the highest rate of marginal tax in the country on the very poorest of Canadians. Of course it is an outrage.

We have also seen the value of refundable tax benefits and GST being determined by net income. As a person leaves social assistance they lose those programs. We have to ensure that is not a deterrent, as it presently is, to moving off social assistance and into the workforce. We have to ensure that our tax policies at the federal and provincial levels and our welfare policy fit together so that we encourage wherever possible, wherever

there are jobs, those people who can fill them to move off social assistance into the job market.

We have to ensure that the transition period from social assistance or unemployment insurance into the workforce is a smooth one and is possible for Canadians to make. We have to take notice of the high cost of working for some families as they move from social assistance into the workforce.

In conclusion, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Human Resources Development to work with the provinces to ensure these transitional arrangements are smooth and encourage participation in the workforce.

The motion brings together the important points on how we deal with one of the most serious problems in our country: how to find the resources necessary to ensure that those who are not part of the paid workforce live in security and dignity. Surely that is a role of any democratic and decent society.

We have to ensure that our tax system is fair, that those who can pay do pay, and that we close tax loopholes which would bring in, as I have indicated, billions of dollars that could be used on social programs. We have to ensure that tax policy as it affects social policy is progressive and that the transition from social assistance or unemployment insurance into the workforce is a smooth one.

This is not easy but with political will to solve this problem it can certainly be achieved as it has been in many other countries.

[Justice, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I raise today the issue of Patrick Kelly who is serving a sentence for first degree murder for which he has always professed his innocence.

In recent months, in fact in December, the main witness, Dawn Taber, withdrew her testimony indicating that she had not told the truth about events surrounding the case. In fact the whole case against Patrick Kelly was based on this one eye witness testimony.

In view of the retraction of that testimony, in view of the minister's power under section 690 of the Criminal Code, and in view of the fact that the minister already has the documentation in front of him and has said that this matter will be dealt with in the fullness of time, I urge the minister to act quickly on this matter. It has been in his hands for about four or five months now.

Not only is Patrick Kelly languishing in jail for a crime he did not commit but this also raises serious questions about the efficacy of the Canadian justice system.

I urge the minister to act with haste to resolve this matter.

[Point Of Order, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder when we might hear an apology from the Prime Minister, who last night criticized those on social assistance as doing nothing but sitting at home.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Process, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, it will be necessary for the member for Yukon, the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing and the member for Regina-Lumsden to be recorded as a negative vote on this motion.

[Petitions, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, second I have a petition signed by over 500 people, mostly from Saskatoon, calling on the government to take measures to abolish the Senate, bearing in mind that it is the home of Tory and Liberal patronage without any basic interest to the Canadian taxpayer.

[Petitions, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to present two petitions today, one decrying the decision of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to close the National Film Board office in Saskatoon. This leaves Saskatchewan and Newfoundland the only two provinces without any National Film Board presence. It will cut down on the availability of access to the National Film Board publications.

We have been told that people in Saskatchewan are tired of demonstrating support to maintain the presence of a national institution while national institutions continue to be cut from across Canada and particularly across Saskatchewan.