Gurmant Grewal

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-13, the sales tax and excise tax amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Richmond.

The bill we are debating today has been before committee and is now going through its final debate in the House. The purpose of the bill is to simplify the tax code, but probably not to the extent Canadians would like. The measures are aimed principally at improving the operation and fairness of the GST or HST in affected areas and ensuring the legislation accords with the policy intent.

Bill C-13 implements two amendments to the Excise Tax Act. The first clarifies the deferral of tax on various automobiles and car products to the time of sale or importation to a manufacturer. The amendment is made to clarify the deferral of existing excise taxes on air conditioners, for example, installed in automobiles and on new heavy automobiles at the time of importation by a licensed manufacturer or sale to a licensed manufacturer.

The second amendment provides the Minister of National Revenue with he discretionary power to waive or cancel interest and/or penalties. The second amendment provides discretionary power to the minister, as I have said, to cancel penalties calculated in the same manner as interest under the excise tax system, which is consistent with the discretion already provided to the minister in relation to the sales tax and income tax systems.

The primary goal of the bill is therefore to correct some administrative oversights in the February 2000 budget concerning the application of the GST and HST. The bill is technical amending legislation. The official opposition therefore supports the bill, but we believe the government could have done more to address other pertinent issues relating to taxes.

There are a number of GST and HST measures in the bill. I will briefly describe them. The export distribution centre and export trading house programs amendment would implement new rules that ensure the GST and HST do not impede North American distribution centres in Canada. Businesses would be able to purchase or import inventory and customer goods on a tax-free basis rather than having to pay the tax and later claim a refund. This might help combat fraud, which is unfortunately part of the system.

The non-residents and cross-border transactions amendment ensures that no tax is payable on goods imported solely as replacements under warranty. It also ensures there is no tax on the service of storing goods for a non-resident business.

Another point is that the real property amendment implements the new residential rental property rebate, which is a partial rebate of GST on newly constructed or substantially renovated long term residential rental accommodation. I see many such accommodations in my constituency of Surrey Central. The builders or the people involved in that kind of construction will feel some relief in that area.

That is important because it permits a credit for work done on a new home used primarily as a place of residence or as short term public accommodation, for example a bed and breakfast establishment. Such establishments will get some sort of relief. That is particularly important because the previous rules disallowed homeowners the credit if they ran small businesses out of their homes.

There are other amendments. The health amendment continues to be in force. There are GST and HST exemptions for speech therapy services that are billed by individual practitioners and not covered by the applicable provincial health care plan. The bill will provide some relief for people who use such therapies.

The education amendment ensures that similar vocational training across the country is provided the same exempt treatment, regardless of how vocational schools are regulated in each province.

The electronic filing amendment removes the requirement to apply to the Minister of National Revenue for permission to file GST or HST returns electronically over the telephone or Internet. Canadians are busy preparing their tax returns. If the bill is put into place it will probably give relief to people who must seek such permission. It allows anyone to file taxes that way, provided they meet the criteria set out by the minister.

Finally, there are miscellaneous amendments which correct ambiguities in existing provisions consistent with current industry practice, administrative interpretation and the underlying policy intent. These are some of the areas the bill focuses on.

For those who are watching I will quote from the Canadian Alliance policy, which is the grassroots members' policy.

We will restore public confidence in the fairness of the Canadian tax system by reducing its complexity. We will restore indexation and move towards a simpler tax system, built around a single rate of taxation to ensure lower taxes for all Canadians. We believe that all Canadians above a minimum income level should share in the cost of the services provided by government, which benefit us all.

There are other areas of concern. I was talking with my constituents during the two week break. They are concerned about gas prices because there are taxes on taxes on taxes. I regret that the sharp spike in the price of home heating oil and gasoline, which has hit us all so hard, is not addressed in the bill.

Canadians suffered this winter in the cold climate. The Liberals did not foresee or prevent the 70% hike in natural gas prices, which they should have if they had prudent practices in place. They did nothing about it except send out cheques for a couple of hundred dollars. The government completely missed the target. Instead of sending cheques to those most in need of assistance it sent them to people who probably do not pay heating bills such as students, prisoners and even deceased Canadians.

The Liberal finance minister has no sympathy for our seniors or for persons on fixed incomes. These people have so little money that they must choose between filling prescriptions, buying food or paying for heat. It is the Liberal government's fault because the government keeps our taxes high and our dollar weak. We are being hurt twice.

It is the tax on gas which has driven the price upward. The price we pay at the gas pumps includes a tremendous amount of tax. The price of crude gas is something like 29 cents, but these days we are paying 74 cents or so at the pumps.

That is why when the price of gas or oil on the world market is hiked we feel it more. Not only is the price hiked but the taxes go up accordingly. That exacerbates the increase in the wholesale price.

First, we have the federal excise and sales tax on gas. On top of that we have a provincial excise tax. On top of that we have a provincial sales tax. On top of all that we have the 7% GST. In other words, we are paying GST on the taxes as well which is wrong. We have a tax on a tax on tax on a tax. That is the kind of system we have in gas pricing and that is very unfair.

My province of British Columbia gets less than 5% of the amount of federal taxes paid on gas for transportation and infrastructure development. The federal Liberals rake in about $700 million a year in fuel taxes from British Columbia alone, and this is the only province that does not have any four lane highways. We cannot even buy enough street lamps with the 5% the federal Liberals are returning to us for transportation and infrastructure development. That is the kind of situation we are facing with respect to that particular area.

However, we support this bill but we again urge the government to lower taxes for Canadian families, consumers and small businesses. Those lower taxes will help boost our economy. We want lower taxes and a simplified tax code. Our tax code is very complicated, probably one of the most complicated of any country which I have visited or heard about.

The clarifications in Bill C-13 should only be a temporary measure on the road to tax reform. The steps are in the right direction but they are baby steps.

The provisions of Bill C-13 enact corrections to last year's budget and the fall mini budget. The government should be moving toward simplifying and broadening the base of the tax code. If the tax code was simplified, endless exemptions and further clarifications would not be necessary. There may not be any need to do what we are doing today.

From this point, lowering the taxes of all Canadians will have a far more positive impact for everyone. With the exception of the new residential rental property debate, the amendments will have little impact on the government's revenue. Expected costs for the new residential rental property rebate are estimated at $15 million for 2000-01, $40 million for 2001-02 and $45 million for subsequent years.

In conclusion, we will support the bill but we remind the government that it should lower taxes for Canadians and simplify the tax code. I believe Canada can be a competitive leader in the global economy of the future and I believe Canadians can enjoy a higher standard of living and a better quality of life.

However to get there we must blaze a trail of tax relief and debt reduction. We need to lower taxes such as payroll taxes. We need to cut the tax on investing. We should not be penalizing those investors who invest in Canada, who boost our economy and who help create jobs.

We should cut the taxes on high tech businesses. It is time these businesses be promoted. That is where our future lies. That is where more jobs will be created. However the government does not realize that we have to cut taxes for high tech businesses as well as small businesses. Ninety-six per cent of jobs are created by small businesses.

These are some of the points I wanted to add to this debate.

[Computer Hackers, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on private member's Motion No. 80 which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately amend the Criminal Code to create a separate category of offences and punishments for computer hackers and persons who willfully or maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic business in Canada.

I would like to begin my remarks in support of this common sense initiative by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, for bringing this matter to the floor of the House for consideration. My colleague introduced the motion in the last parliament as well but the Liberals ignored it.

My colleague's motion is forward thinking and responds to the needs of consumers and businesses who are very concerned about the shenanigans caused by computer hackers and those who enjoy sending out e-mails that crash computers.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, law enforcement agencies and the courts are not properly equipped to lay criminal charges nor prosecute matters that involve Internet hacking. Creating a separate category would facilitate the prosecution of such crimes in a consistent manner and would act as a deterrent for those who intend to hack computers with malintent.

I will describe the seriousness and the losses that can be caused by such hacking. Recent events show how much money can be lost because of hacking or computer viruses. Not long ago egghead.com was attacked and three million credit card numbers were stolen.

Last February, a 16 year old boy from Quebec, known as mafia boy, was charged with conducting a denial of service attack on the world's leading Internet sites, like amazon.com, e-bay, CNN, yahoo and e*trade. The high tech crime spree prompted an FBI investigation. The mafia boy is facing a maximum of two years in custody. These attacks were estimated to have cost the firms $1.2 billion U.S. based on lost revenue, loss in market capitalization and dollars spent upgrading security systems.

In the first quarter of 2000, the FBI reported that 800,000 credit card numbers were stolen over the Internet in three incidents. In May 2000, the “I love you” virus wreaked havoc worldwide and caused an estimated $10 billion in losses.

In December 2000, the University of Washington Hospital had a website security issue, making all its confidential patient information available on the web for three days.

Those are some of the examples that come to light regarding Internet hacking.

International airports, banks, governments, defence departments, science labs and power companies are all vulnerable to computer hackers and viruses. Organized crime is a serious threat in this century. What would happen if a hacker managed to trigger missiles? Because they are computer based, someone could hack into the computer, fool around and trigger a missile. This kind of threat must be taken seriously, not only in Canada but internationally.

Internet use has increased markedly in the past five years. Many homes are logged on to the Internet. Young people are at the cutting edge of our computer oriented society. We must impress on our younger generations the serious nature of tampering or playing with this technology.

I will now talk about liability, responsibility and lack of protection in this case. Security flaws sometimes may not be detectable. When a technology is created sometimes the security flaws cannot be detected because they may be in a particular area or be service oriented. If unethical people find the flaw, they could exploit it for personal or criminal gains.

The software companies are not liable for security flaws in their products since they have liability clauses in their agreements. Consumers are not protected by industry standards or government regulations. There is no guarantee of security being offered for Internet use.

These kinds of crimes affect our livelihood, our lives and invade our privacy. They threaten the e-commerce worldwide.

The Canadian centre for information technology security was founded by the University of British Columbia as well as the justice institute of B.C. to lead the way in information security. It is an effort in the right direction but such efforts need the support of government and law enforcement agencies. There needs to be a law with teeth in this regard.

The problem is serious as peace is threatened. International co-operation is imperative. There may be a disruption in our international security if the issue is not handled properly.

There has been no Liberal action on the issue. The weak Liberal government that lacks vision is not doing anything to address the situation. It is a serious matter. Rather than making the motion votable, the Liberals have ignored it. I do not know whether they will even speak to the motion.

The Liberals should have taken their cue from my colleague and stolen his motion so that Canadians could be protected from hackers. There should be a bill coming from the government, but the weak Liberal government that lacks vision has done nothing on the issue so far. Leadership is needed on the issue and it is not coming from the Liberal government. That is why my colleague has introduced the forward thinking motion we are debating today.

Prevention is always better than cure. Preventive measures such as criminal sanctions need to be adopted. There should be a specific reference in the criminal code for offences related to Internet sabotage or hacking. We are living in a computer age and it is necessary to have laws in statutes that reflect that. The debate should wake up members opposite. I urge all members of the House to support Motion No. 80.

It is a common sense motion. Motion No. 80 requests that the criminal code be changed to include a section on offences that would allow police to lay charges against any person or persons who deliberately export a computer virus or engage in any activity designed to disrupt e-commerce and business in Canada.

All members are asked to support the motion so that we can take the right action at the right time and prevent mishappenings in the future.

[Government Of Canada, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has failed to deal effectively with the agriculture and softwood lumber crises, with nurses' strikes and the health crisis, with the low dollar and high taxes, with transport and the crumbling infrastructure, with gasoline and home heating costs, and with unsafe communities and regional alienation, among others.

We must remember that the Liberals came to power by misleading Canadians on their promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. The Prime Minister refused to allow an independent inquiry into the Shawinigate affair.

The Liberals voted against their own red book promise of creating an independent ethics counsellor. Now, by refusing to replace the junior minister for multiculturalism for her deliberate smears, the Prime Minister has established the lowest ethics standard for cabinet in our history.

What do we call this? We call it an unaccountable, arrogant, weak and corrupt Liberal government that lacks vision.

[Judges Act, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act.

Before I begin my remarks I would like to congratulate the chief opposition justice critic, the hon. member for Provencher, who has made excellent comments and explained very eloquently the official opposition's position on the Judges Act.

The purpose of the bill is to implement the federal government's response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding compensation and benefits for judges. It would amend the Judges Act to increase judicial salaries and allowances, modify the current judicial annuities scheme and put into place a separate life insurance plan for federally appointed judges.

Bill C-12 makes other consequential amendments to the Judges Act and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The commission is appointed for a four year term and mandated to consider the compensation and benefits of judges and to make recommendations to government.

The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates the three persons. One is nominated by the judiciary, one by the Minister of Justice and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two members.

The government accepted the commission's recommendation of a salary increase of 11.2% retroactive to April 1, 2000. The salary increase will cost approximately $19 million. The 42 page bill contains nothing but amendments, replacements or additions to previous clauses changing the salaries of 1,013 federally appointed judges. There are also amendments to compensation benefits, early and special retirement provisions, pro-rated annuities, et cetera.

The judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%. It had said the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. However federal representatives told a hearing into judges' salaries earlier this year that there was no shortage of candidates for the bench, pointing out that there had been eight applicants for each federal job over the last decade.

The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998 when they received 4.1%. In 1997 they received another 4.1%. The judges received more than 8.2% in increases over two years. Judges' salaries are also indexed so they receive annual cost of living increases. While we have no position on judges' salaries and pensions we favour generally that they be comparable to those in the private sector.

In the 35th parliament the government introduced two bills, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, amending the Judges Act. In the 36th parliament there was Bill C-37. All these bills, including Bill C-12 which we are debating today, have been said to be administrative in nature. Four times the Liberal government has come forward with amendments to the Judges Act.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the pay increase for federally appointed judges is higher than the increase the federal government is prepared to grant much lower paid public service employees. Lately it has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, to senior bureaucrats and now to judges while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

While we do not dispute the salaries of appointed judges and others, they should generally be in line with the private sector. It is apparent that staff in the lower echelons of our justice system is being ignored. Public servants should get salary increases in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner. The government has awarded pay raises and bonuses to judges and senior bureaucrats while frontline police officers and lower level public servants receive little or nothing.

On March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2% retroactive to January 1, 1998. They received a second increment of 1% on April 1, 1998, and an additional 0.7% increase on October 1, 1998. RCMP officers had their wages frozen for five years.

The official opposition will review and closely scrutinize the provisions of Bill C-12, including the annuities scheme.

It seems the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and situations. Legislation tailor made to fit an individual would compromise the impartiality of our judiciary. The changes proposed to the Judges Act would allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge after the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both or two survivor's benefits upon the death of his second spouse. One could only guess why the government would contemplate such a rare and highly unlikely situation. We will be investigating that and we will be vigilant while debating the bill.

We propose an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would safeguard Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 in the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The failure of the current bill to introduce changes to the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain part of the patronage system.

However the Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process in the judiciary overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee to review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister.

The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in such matters. At the moment there is no input from the provinces in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Section 69 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy, which is always dictated by the grassroots members, states:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on merit.

In conclusion, both Liberal justice ministers since 1993 have failed to introduce a victims' bill of rights, address important issues pertaining to drinking and driving or even pass a young offenders act. Instead they occupy the justice committee with administrative matters at the expense of more important issues. The country is experiencing a backlog in the courts and criminal trials are being put on hold, yet the government tinkers with the salaries of judges.

I regret that judges are somehow caught up in the legislation. We acknowledge that judges are very hard working and want to contribute to making our judicial system fairer and faster as well as to making Canada a better country. We are talking about Liberal government mismanagement.

The government's unfair treatment of Canadians who work or are otherwise involved in the criminal justice system knows no boundaries. Its inequitable treatment of Canadian workers extends all the way to the federal court benches. It does not treat the victims of crime fairly, and today we are debating a bill that does not even treat judges fairly.

The bill does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. My colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill unless it is amended.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the people of Surrey Central are pleased to have me participate in the debate today concerning the establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

In the 2000 federal budget the Liberals announced that they would be creating a sustainable development technology fund. They earmarked $100 million as the amount of initial funding. They are proposing a foundation to administer these funds. In the debate today we are disappointed that the committee hearings on the bill did not result in the Auditor General of Canada overseeing the books of the foundation.

I will quickly review what the foundation is supposed to do. The sustainable development technology foundation is allegedly to operate at arm's length from the government. It is to be operated as a not for profit organization. It will administer funding primarily to projects related to greenhouse gas reduction and improving air quality.

The foundation will dole out funds on a project by project basis. The foundation will accept proposals from existing and new collaborative arrangements among technology developers, suppliers, users, universities, not for profit organizations, and organizations such as industrial associations and research institutes. The government originally expected that the foundation would be in place by March 2001.

The people of Surrey Central support this initiative. We believe that this is the kind of thing where our government should be taking the lead. I would venture to say that members on all sides of the House want to protect Canada's environment and work on projects related to greenhouse gas reduction and improving air quality. Our children certainly want that. We want our children and grandchildren to have that.

Canadian Alliance policy supports these kinds of sustainable development initiatives. I want to make that absolutely clear by stating our policy. We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species and to the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

Therefore we will strike a balance between environmental preservation and economic development. This includes creating partnerships with provincial governments, private industry, educational institutions and the public to promote meaningful progress in the area of environmental protection. That is the policy we have pledged to follow when we form the next government.

As a government the Liberals have mismanaged our environment and failed to provide sustainable development. This weak Liberal government has signed international treaties including Kyoto, Beijing and Rio, with no intention whatsoever of carrying out those commitments.

The government has made political decisions about matters that require scientific decisions. The conservation of fish species was based on political decisions, not on scientific evidence or scientific research. The safety of the bovine growth hormone was influenced by political pressure and political interference rather than by scientific evidence and research.

The government is too busy trying to garner votes and counter Canadian Alliance policy rather than allowing scientific principles and evidence to drive the efforts to protect our environment and meet our international commitments.

Since 1993 the Liberals have been promising Canadians that they were going to pass endangered species legislation, which of course died twice on the order paper. After seven or eight years, what do we have? We have another bill they are promising to pass.

The endangered species bill they are proposing is an assault on property owners in Canada. It is confiscation without compensation. It is hard to imagine. It is so undemocratic that it is anti-democratic, but that is another story for another day.

This weak Liberal government that lacks vision really has done nothing in terms of initiatives for our environment and sustainable development since 1993. Other countries have passed legislation and are way ahead. Even the United Nations itself has a sustainable development office, but the Liberals allow Canada to once again be left behind.

The bill was originally introduced as part of budget 2000, delivered almost a year ago. Now, after a year of doing nothing, the government wants the bill to pass through the House and the Senate as soon as possible and receive royal assent so it can dole out $100 million. Is this simple mismanagement or is it indicative of the usual way the government operates? It could not care less about debate in the House. It does not hesitate to use closure or time allocation to ram any bill through.

At any rate, it is important to note that the official opposition wants to support the bill today, but we wanted to see some amendments as well. We would have supported the bill one year ago, but the government did not allow it to go forward until this month, at least one year late if we use the Liberal government budget 2000 agenda, and seven or eight years late according to the red book one promise.

Let me talk about suggestions we have for the Liberals concerning the bill. Our suggestions really do not have anything to do with the sustainable development aspect of the bill. The amendments needed do not have anything to do with the projects related to greenhouse gas reductions or improving air quality.

Our amendments have to do with the Liberal Party's arrogance. Canadians are very uncomfortable with patronage, which denies them transparency and accountability.

Let me read a simple paragraph from Canadian Alliance policy:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on merit.

The Liberals are proposing to turn the sustainable development foundation into a Liberal patronage pork barrel. The people of Surrey Central and I are dismayed. We are disappointed that the government would take such a wonderful initiative of supporting projects related to greenhouse gas reductions and improving air quality and turn the efforts into some kind of Liberal Party payoff.

The Liberals are trying to arrange it so that the chairperson and a minority number of directors and members are appointed by the governor in council. They then appoint the remaining members to complete the 15 person board of directors. Obviously the foundation will become another Liberal patronage plum. When will the Liberals evolve in the new millennium and put a stop to these kinds of 17th century old boys' club practices? When will they abandon the politics of exclusion? When will they stop implementing their systems of disenfranchisement?

The patronage practices of the government are virtually fascist by strict political definition. The Canadian Alliance will put a stop to this sort of thing when it forms the next government.

The creation of a sustainable development foundation is something all Canadians have wanted for years. The Liberals are turning it into some kind of arena for political payoffs. What a shame.

Let me talk about the auditing of the foundation. Again, while the foundation would provide an annual report to parliament, the foundation would appoint its own auditors and have final approval on the financial reports before they are made public. While the legislation does not set out rules as to who would be eligible to be the auditor, the government refuses to allow the Auditor General of Canada access to the foundation's books.

It is no wonder that the government does not want the office of the Auditor General of Canada involved. It knows that the auditor general has been very critical of its practices. The Liberals have had a difficult ride with the outgoing auditor general. His most recent report was probably his most scathing indictment yet of the government. Each auditor general's report on the mismanagement of the Liberal government is worse than the previous one.

The official opposition wants these issues, the question of who will audit the foundation and the question of how appointments will be made to the foundation, dealt with. We ask the government to look at these issues seriously. These are non-partisan, good suggestions. We will not allow these two concerns to be swept under the carpet by the Liberals. Based on these two things, we have to oppose the bill and we do not want to have to do that.

Another issue, our environment, is the most important thing that the House of Commons could be dealing with. Debates on the environment speak to the very future of the human race on this planet. All else really pales in comparison when we view what other subjects we could be debating in the House of Commons. Bill C-4 is a good example of the weaknesses of the government when it comes to the issue of sustainable development.

I would also point out that in regard to the idea of creating a new foundation of this sort the government does not really talk about where it would be based and what centre it would be working out of. It actually puts into question the future of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, located in Winnipeg. We already have one institute for sustainable development and its future is in jeopardy.

I participated in the second reading debate of the bill and was very interested in the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. He has some serious concerns about the hidden agenda of the Liberal government when it comes to the future of the sustainable development centre in his riding. I share his concerns.

The institute was created years ago and has had its funding reduced year after year, to the point where it is really a shadow of its former self. There was a time when it had a staff of 140 people and its own building. It now occupies a very small office, with maybe a handful of people, on the third floor of a nondescript office building in the centre of downtown Winnipeg. We wonder if the government has completely forgotten it already has an institute for sustainable development. Maybe the Liberals are threatening to axe what is left of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

We have to compare the $100 million figure that the Liberals have given us in Bill C-4 to cover the issue of sustainable development with the government putting $1.3 billion into a very narrow and fixed program, a one time payment to offset energy costs for Canadians. The government missed the target with that one as well, sending cheques to students, prisoners, MPs and deceased Canadians but not to those who pay the heating bills.

Getting back to the institute in Winnipeg, if there is $100 million to spend, why would the government not restore the institute to its former stature, that of a world leader, research centre and resource library for anyone interested in the whole concept of energy conservation or sustainable development? Why not enhance the Winnipeg facility as a centre of excellence right in the centre of Canada and become world leaders so we can export the technology?

In conclusion, once again we have the Liberals taking an initiative, one that everyone would want to support, the creation of a sustainable development foundation, but what do they do? They turn it into a venue for patronage payoffs and they close the books to the auditor general. They want to control the $100 million they are giving to the foundation without anyone else finding out which Liberal Party donors receive the bulk of the $100 million.

It would be amazing if it were not so sad. The people of Surrey Central, who want to support the creation of the sustainable development foundation, do not want to support the bill because of the way the Liberals are playing politics with it. If the Liberals are prepared to fix the flaws and the corruption they have written into the bill, then we would be more than happy to support it.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been a very interesting debate and we have had an encouraging response from all members. It is very good to have discussion from all members.

In that spirit, I would like to point out that Canadian Alliance members did not oppose that consent. I would ask you to seek unanimous consent of the House again, because Canadian Alliance members will say yes to extend the question and comment period.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who is a former banker and economist, for this triple-barrelled question. However, my time is short and I think he talked about the whole economy. It would probably take six hours to answer this question in detail.

However, I appreciate the hon. member's question and I appreciate his acknowledgement that the tax cuts in the Canadian Alliance plan were greater and that they were the largest tax cuts in Canadian history. I compliment the hon. member for being honest and straightforward in acknowledging that. When a Liberal member acknowledges that the tax cuts our party was proposing were the highest, I consider it a compliment.

Then he went further in talking about that $18 billion hole. However, let me remind the hon. member, who is an economist and who has a huge amount of experience in working with banks, that we would eliminate the waste in the government and cut spending by government as well. The hon. member knows that nine cents of each tax dollar is wasted by the government. That alone reduces by a significant amount what he is talking about if we take that 9% off the $142 billion revenue of the government that goes to wastage.

He talked about taxation and other things. I would remind the hon. member that it is his party that has been governing this country for quite a long time. It is his party that has contributed considerably to the debt in this country, with 42 cents of each tax dollar going toward debt payment. The Liberals are responsible for putting us at an economic disadvantage.

Look at the low dollar. The hon. member will agree with me that it is this government that is responsible for lowering our dollar, increasing our taxes and increasing our debt. In particular, our personal income taxes are the highest of the G-7 countries, even after this tax relief by the government.

The hon. member should give serious thought to recognizing that the tax relief given by the government is not enough. As he is an expert on this issue, I urge him to lobby the government and to give his advice to the government to lower taxes, not in five years and not by half of what they are telling us, but by the right amount, which Canadians deserve.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member spoke to this bill earlier and I listened to his concerns. I intended to address some of the concerns he mentioned during his speech.

He continues to insist that the bill is a simplification of the Income Tax Act and various other acts. Why then are the amendments needed? The Income Tax Act is very complicated. The new bill has over 500 pages and is further complicating the situation.

The hon. member said that the bill would offer huge tax relief. However, it is too little too late. He bragged about the government's tax relief. According to the hon. member he said that it would be the largest tax relief in Canadian history. I have to contradict him on that point.

I would like to remind the member that the tax decrease which the government is proposing is not an actual tax decrease. I showed through the calculations that it would be less than half and would be over a number of years. I would like to remind him that the largest tax increase in Canadian history took place during this Liberal regime.

He asked me to mention one example. There was a 73% tax increase in CPP. That is the largest tax increase in Canadian history.

It was the Canadian Alliance Party which talked about bracket creep. The government finally listened to us. Whenever I talk to my constituents I always tell them that our party is not only holding the Liberals' feet to the fire, but our party has been carrying a flashlight for a long time. We show the Liberals the darkness and they keep walking behind us. However, the Liberals do not listen. They do not get it right. They steal from our party policy from time to time but we wish they would steal more. Unfortunately, they do not get things right.

Various tax increases, including levies, show that there is a tax increase. I mentioned CPP. The hon. member mentioned that the CPP was arm's length from the government. If that is the case, why did the government grab the surplus from the CPP fund? The CPP premiums were paid by employers and employees and should have been lowered.

The hon. member does not have it right. He should probably take this point into consideration. That is why our party proposed those amendments. The government should listen to Canadians because probably that will help to simplify our Income Tax Act and various other taxes.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to state our case in opposition to Bill C-22, the Liberal government's proposed changes to the Income Tax Act, the income tax application rules, the Canada pension plan, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act and many other acts.

Earlier this morning I spoke in opposition to the Liberal's proposed changes to Bill C-9, the Canada Elections Act. That act creates a two tier electoral system. Among other things, it discriminates against smaller political parties. The Liberals are eroding our democracy with that bill and we cannot support it.

Bill C-22 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act and statutes originally included in Bill C-43 and to put into place key aspects of the last two budgets. The bill has 31 amendments touching on a number of tax deductions and their definitions.

There are three main reasons the official opposition and my constituents oppose the bill. First, the bill fails to address the enormous complexity of the tax code. It adds further complexity to an already complex tax code.

Second, it undermines the family, particularly one income families.

Third, the tax cuts provided for in the bill fall far short of what the Canadian Alliance proposed and what the government must do to increase our nation's productivity, competitiveness and standard of living. I would like to elaborate on those three points beginning with the complexity of the bill.

The government should be moving toward simplifying and broadening the base of the tax code. Lowering the taxes of all Canadians would be easier and it would have a far more positive impact for everyone. If the tax code were simplified and if it had less exemptions, further clarification would not be necessary.

The bill adds to the enormous complexity of the Income Tax Act with its numerous amendments. Rather than simplifying the act as the Canadian Alliance would do, the Liberals continue to maintain a costly and complicated tax code.

Another reason for my opposition to the bill deals with measures in the bill that assist the tax position of families with some minimal tax reductions. Nothing is done to address the longstanding inequality between single income and dual income families. The bill increases the inequity by increasing the child care tax deduction which is only available to high income or dual income families.

The bill also erodes the legal position of marriage. By changing references of spouse to common law partner it is including same sex partners.

Even after the changes proposed in the bill, Canadians would continue to pay far too much in taxes. The mini budget claimed to cut taxes by $100.5 billion over five years. However here is the reality. It is a bit technical so I would like to go into a little detail.

From the $100.5 billion claim of gross tax relief we must subtract $3.2 billion over five years for social spending, chiefly the child care tax benefit. The child care tax benefit is a spending program delivered through the tax system. The increase in the tax benefit should not be confused with being a tax decrease as it is a spending increase. The figure above excludes indexation because indexation is accounted for separately.

We then have to subtract $29.5 billion over five years for increased CPP premium hikes. We then have to subtract $20.7 billion over five years for cancelled tax hikes, namely indexation. Indexing the personal income tax system is meant to hold the tax burden constant over time so it should not be counted as a tax reduction.

Therefore when we take into consideration all those deductions, the net tax relief is only $47.5 billion provided over five years, not immediately.

The reality of the Liberal Party's 2000 tax relief package is that it is less than half of what it claims it is and half of what the Canadian Alliance proposed during the election.

These are the realities when we do a little math and we go into detail. This is how the tax relief would work in contrast to the image of tax relief the Liberals are projecting through their propaganda. We are watching a smoke and mirrors show by the government with respect to the bill.

Bill C-22 is a 500 plus page bill. I will read it later on because it will take too long. The Liberals say the bill is concerned with administrative, technical and implementation measures. They say it implements about $100 billion in tax cuts over five years. As I demonstrated it does not. It is less than half of that amount.

The more people study the bill, the more problems they will find. The more people study the bill the more complexities it creates in the minds of Canadians. I will take the time to go over some of the points.

There are 31 amendments in the bill. One amendment is about non-resident film and video actors. It would apply a new 23% withholding tax on payment to non-resident film and video actors and their corporations, with an option to have the actors and corporations pay regular part 1 tax on the net earnings instead. This provision alone hurts my beautiful province of British Columbia where film making has become popular and is contributing to the economic well-being of my province.

Canada Citizenship and Immigration has also imposed restrictions on issuing visas to those who are trying to come to Canada to make films and make the best use of the beautiful British Columbia scenery and its facilities. This hurts B.C. Those people then go to other countries to make films. Why should they come to B.C. to make films? Many people are hoping the film industry will contribute to the prosperity of my province.

The bill deals with limited liability partnerships, replacement property rules, types of property to be considered, stop-loss loans and a capital tax. An additional capital tax would also be imposed on life insurance corporations. Foreign affiliate losses would determine the affiliate or accrual property income for a particular taxation year. It deals with a foreign affiliate held by a partnership with simultaneous control in a chain of corporations and the control of their stake. It deals with advertising expenses concerning periodicals and magazines between Canada and the United States. It also deals with trusts and the tax treatment or property distribution from a Canadian trust to a non-resident beneficiary. Further, it deals with mutual fund trusts, RRSPs and adjusted retirement income funds.

When we go into the detail of the bill, we will notice that there are more complexities, more anti-family type situations and many other things.

There is taxpayer migration which is the ability to tax the gains accrued by immigrants. It will affect the projection of the country's image with respect to future immigrants.

With reference to foreign branch banking, there would be a 15% investment tax credit for certain grassroots mineral exploration. There is the foreign exploration and development expenses and the value of foreign resource property owned. It would impose a 30% restriction for the annual deduction of new foreign exploration and development expense benefits.

There are many other points. Here is another one. There would be a foreign tax credit on oil and gas production sharing agreements. Another one is weak currency debt that limits the deductibility of interest expenses and adjusts foreign exchange gains and losses in respect of weak currency debt and associated hedging transactions.

There are many points in the bill which will further make the tax codes very complicated.

Since capitalization, it reduces the acceptable debt to equity ratio from 3:1 to 2:1 and it repeals the exemption for manufacturers for aircraft and aircraft components.

As far as CPP contributions on self-employed earnings, these amendments introduce a deduction from business income for one-half of CPP contributions on self-employed earnings with the other half of the contributions remaining eligible for the CPP tax credit.

Here is something regarding students and scholarships, fellowships and bursaries. The exemption would be increased by $3,500 for scholarships, fellowships and bursaries received by the taxpayer in connection with the taxpayer's enrolment in a program and in respect of the taxpayer claiming the education tax credit.

Here is another one for the education tax credit. It would double the monthly amounts the tax credit allows to full time and part time students based on $400 and $120 respectively.

It also affects the medical expense tax credit.

There is not one area that does not affect families, caregivers, infirm dependant tax credits, disability tax credits, child care expense deductions and so on. Therefore, I assume this bill will not only be affecting families but also those individuals and low income people.

The Canadian Mining Association supports some aspects of this bill. It supports the definition of mining property, yet it was not aware of the changes until the official opposition contacted it. The association was not consulted. It had to learn from us that the definition of mining property was being tinkered with by the government.

This is a government from behind closed doors. Surely if the government was sincere in its intention, it would have contacted stakeholders and various groups in Canada. It would have listened to Canadians. It should have understood that Canadians want the tax credits to be implemented sooner rather than up to 2005.

The bill guarantees that the basic personal exemptions will hit a minimum of $8,000 by the year 2004. The credits and relief provided in the bill are a step in the right direction, but they are baby steps nonetheless.

Efforts have been made to reduce the capital gains tax, deficit surtax, marginal rates, raise marginal income thresholds and tighten up various other rules surrounding deductions. The bill would increase and clarify the disability tax credit.

There are some good points and some bad points.

In conclusion, Canadian Alliance members would restore public confidence in the fairness of the Canadian tax system by reducing its complexity. We would restore indexation and move toward a simpler tax system built around a single rate of taxation to ensure lower taxes for all Canadians. We believe all Canadians above a minimum income level should share in the cost of the services provided by the government, which benefit all of us irrespective of income.

We hope the government will consider the amendments and what witnesses have said at the committee hearings on this bill. At this point the Canadian Alliance will not be supporting this bill.

[Multiculturalism, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the disgraced junior multiculturalism minister's hurtful smears and remarks contradict her own government's foreign policy.

When she smeared Kamloops and Prince George she also compared Northern Ireland to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Macedonia. She is seriously undermining Canada's efforts in the peace process in Northern Ireland. Canada has contributed over $5 million of our tax dollars to peace building efforts in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister must replace this minister before she does more damage. The minister is subverting international efforts in the peace process.

She is inflicting injuries not only at home but also on the world stage. Her smears not only contradict her own department's mandate but also work against the government's foreign affairs agenda.

The Prime Minister must not send this embattled minister to South Africa for the United Nations world conference on racism.