Dennis Mills

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, to begin I would like to say to the industry critic for the Reform Party and the critic from the Bloc Quebecois that as we in committee designed this bill we had a very constructive debate, a very solid exchange of views. I am happy to see that this spirit is continuing today in the House, because it is important that we put this bill through the House today, with all the responsibility we have been given to make sure we do the right thing.

At the same time, members must realize that this Business Development Bank of Canada is an instrument that we need to act as a catalyst with the small and medium size business community and it must be done. This bill must be passed before this House adjourns.

I now want to deal with the Reform Party member's concerns about this area of the bill on these motions. I want to humbly differ with him. Where the member has said that we are not specific about the options the bank may choose to get into and therefore the crown's liability might be increased, I differ with that.

I want to be very specific. Under section 30 of the bill, it is entitled the debt to equity ratio. Section 30 is very specific. The aggregate of (a) the borrowings of the bank under subsection 18(1) and section 19 and (b) the contingent liabilities of the bank in the form of guarantees given by it must not at any time exceed 12 times the equity of the bank.

We go on and we are very specific about the definition of equity:

For the purpose of subsection (1), the equity of the Bank consists of

(a) the amounts paid for its shares, including any contributed surplus;

(b) the retained earnings of the Bank, which may be positive or negative;

(c) the amounts paid to the Bank as capital by Parliamentary appropriation; and

(d) such proceeds of debt instruments, hybrid capital instruments or any other arrangements as may be prescribed as equity by the Governor in Council.

What I am suggesting by that very specific control the bank has is that the amendment the Reform Party is putting forward is not necessary because any activity in respect to the concern of the member of the Reform Party could only be undertaken if it met the bank's eligibility criteria. If the eligibility criteria were not met, then the bank could not proceed holus-bolus on its own.

I believe that the bill, as it stands, amply covers the Reform Party's concerns.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while there is much that is laudable in Bill C-41, public concern has focused on one issue, the inclusion of the words sexual orientation as one of the categories for which crimes motivated by hatred would merit stricter sentencing in section 718.2 of the bill.

I have listened to those concerns from my constituents who have spoken to me personally and hundreds who have written letters to me, and I share their views. I do not feel the words sexual orientation should appear in the bill and I support the amendment proposed by the member for Ontario to remove the list of categories altogether.

It is important to explain the basis of my objections as there is a misconception that opposition to including sexual orientation as a category in this bill is in itself motivated by hatred of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My riding contains a significant gay community. I have met with some of its organizations and have been very active in trying to address its concerns. I am also strongly opposed to so-called gay bashing or any crimes motivated by hatred against a minority group in society. That is why I support the bill in requiring stricter sentencing for assault and other crimes motivated by hatred.

Yet I cannot bring myself to support the inclusion of sexual orientation as a legal category in the bill, as it seems to me there may be unintended consequences of this inclusion that may affect our definition of the family, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being drafted the then justice minister, the current Prime Minister, said the term sexual orientation had not been included in section 15 because of the problem of the definition of those words. Speaking of sexual orientation he then stated: "Do not ask me to tell you what it is because those concepts are difficult to interpret, to define, and that is why we do not want them in the Constitution".

Why should a term too vague for the Constitution of Canada in 1981 suddenly be clear as day in 1995? Some hon. members have proposed amendments to define this term for greater clarity but I think the wiser approach is to avoid the problem altogether by striking the list of terms from the bill.

I fear that by including the words sexual orientation in federal law for the first time without clarification or definition, we are extending an invitation to the courts to read sexual orientation into other statutes as they have done with the Canadian and Alberta bill of rights in previous provincial court decisions. The legitimacy of this reading in has not yet been ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada. By including these words in a section 15 like list in a federal statute we are saying as federal legislators that what we did not want to include in 1981 we want to include today.

The courts may well turn to this wording for guidance on other matters. What we have already seen is not encouraging. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ruled the Alberta human rights code had to be read as if sexual orientation was included in the Vriend case, which meant a private Christian Reformed college had to hire a teacher who was a practising homosexual despite its religious objections to his behaviour.

In recent years we have seen attempts to deny the Salvation Army the right to use municipal property in the city of Toronto as it will not hire openly homosexual employees or clergy.

We have seen Catholic school boards in Montreal forced to rent property to homosexual organizations all on the basis of including sexual orientation in human rights legislation and despite freedom of religion and freedom of association.

Two weeks ago in Ontario a provincial court judge ruled homosexual couples were eligible to adopt children despite the fact that the legislators had defeated a similar measure only a few months before.

If we as federal parliamentarians choose to include the words sexual orientation in federal law for the first time we will only encourage the courts in this practice at a time when many Canadians are questioning whether the courts are being too swift in striking down the decisions of elected legislators.

While this bill may be a simple sentencing bill, not the charter or a human rights bill, our use of this language sends a message to the courts they may choose to interpret in ways we had not intended.

We may not want to prevent a Salvation Army band from playing a Christmas concert for the poor on public property. We may not want private religious schools to be forced to hire openly homosexual teachers despite their religious teachings. We may not want paedophilia to be accepted as a legitimate sexual orientation. That is what may happen not because of this bill but because of what the courts may choose to do in applying this statutory language in other unrelated contexts.

I hope I have made it clear why I, without any personal disrespect or malice toward homosexual persons, do not feel it would be prudent to include the words sexual orientation in this legislation. We are opening the door to the use of this language in other contexts that may lead to legitimizing other forms of sexual orientation we would not want to approve or to the use of the concept of sexual orientation to harm the rights of religious and other groups to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

The whole problem can be avoided by accepting the amendment by the member for Ontario and eliminating this contentious list of categories altogether.

If the purpose of the bill is to ensure crimes motivated by hatred are more severely assessed in sentencing, let us leave it at that. If the purpose is to create a precedent of recognition of the concept of sexual orientation, a concept the Prime Minister felt was too ambiguous to include in the Constitution of 1981, one that might be used in other contexts we would not approve of as legislators, then this section of Bill C-41 does not deserve the support of the House.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks made by the hon. member.

I remind the member we have members of Parliament from every region of the country. I believe our members of Parliament, especially the minister responsible for fisheries and oceans, who also comes from Atlantic Canada, are well equipped to give advice to the House on the types of programs that would assist their constituents when they are going through this very difficult period.

One of the things the Reform Party has to face is that it does not have any members in Atlantic Canada. Because the Reform Party does not have any members in Atlantic Canada it would like to let the local and provincial authorities do it. However, as the national party, the Liberal Party has members who are sensitive to every region of this country.

The point that caused me to rise this evening had to do with the whole issue of tax reform. I came to Parliament full of hope that the Reform Party would have a very tight focus on the whole issue of comprehensive tax reform. What do we hear day in and day out in question period? During the last couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to look at question period, and I notice that the Reform Party has not focused on the issue of tax reform. I think maybe once the member from Calgary gave a pretty good speech on it. Here is an issue that could affect the lives of every Canadian. It was the Reform Party's issue during the last election, but its members came to this House and deserted it.

The hon. member said we should cancel grants to business. The biggest grants to business in this country are the billions of dollars that are buried in the tax act, many of which go to foreign multinational oil companies in the form of tax credits. Will he stand up in the House and say that all of those tax credits, tax grants, and tax preferences should be cancelled?

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Capilano-Howe Sound for entering the debate on comprehensive tax reform.

I accept his note of caution when he spoke about overstating the accomplishments of a single tax. I think the member forgot to mention three very important fundamentals that would be achieved by a simple, fair, and efficient tax system. We always stated that the provincial rate would be added on to the federal rate, but I think there are three additional advantages the member did not cite.

First, I believe that a simplified fair tax system where everybody is in the loop would reduce the underground economy. I think one reason we have an underground economy in such an exacerbated state right now is because our tax system has driven people underground. A simplified and fair tax system would reduce the underground economy, which would add more revenue to the treasury.

The second issue that is fundamental to the system of a single tax system deals with what is happening in Hong Kong. They have a form of a single tax system over there, and it creates large pools of capital. When large pools of capital come into a country it puts downward pressure on interest rates. That downward pressure on interest rates means that capital is less costly for governments when they borrow it, which deals with the revenue or expenditure problem. It is also less costly for entrepreneurship. I believe that one thing entrepreneurship needs right now is cheaper capital and lots of it. That in turn would create an environment for investment and job creation. So the single tax has a direct impact on flows of capital, which would put downward pressure on interest rates.

The third thing the member did not touch on in his address on tax reform has to do with productivity. With a fair tax system I believe people would work harder and smarter and therefore the cost of goods would go down, which would help our exports tremendously, which would increase the bottom line, not only in business but in corporate tax revenues to the treasury also.

The member did not deal with those three specific features, which are part and parcel of the single tax system. Since the member is an economist, I wonder if he would consider they would be valid premises to work on.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very tough question for me to answer. There is only one answer and that is the answer one believes in. I have been in opposition where we have had the guillotine of closure put on us. I would say that we did not like it.

Let me say first that the administration of this House because of the legislative agenda and because we do not sit as much requires this from time to time. We have brought in time allocation or closure on bills about 10 per cent compared to the previous government. I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that any time we have brought in closure it was in the interests of making sure that the administration of certain pieces of legislation got through the system for a very specific purpose, but never in terms of shutting down debate.

We on this side of the House, and I have said this repeatedly, would welcome good, tough, solid debate from the opposition. Quite frankly sometimes we feel that the best debate we have in this Parliament is among ourselves. We have actually talked of having a good intersquad game among ourselves in the House of Commons.

The bottom line is that we have brought in closure less than 10 per cent in comparison to the Tories.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois for the question. It is a question I have been asking myself for the last two years.

I have been campaigning on the single tax system for the past five years. When I started the debate I did not understand the complexity of the tax act and its sensitivity toward progressivity for seniors and families with children. We designed and redesigned the tax form over 30 different times in order to try and have something that was doable. Having said all of that I really do believe our last effort on this project was very close to something that was doable and worked for everyone.

I like to think I have a little bit of experience in selling to my colleagues in this House of Commons. I have worked hard for the party for 15 years now. I have discovered regrettably that the lobby system which exists around the tax act and the Department of Finance is the strongest lobby which exists in Canada. The men and women who have lobbied for a particular tax preference within the 1,400 pages of the tax act are all people who believe in their cause. I am not saying they are doing anything subversive or illegal, but their ability to lobby their cause and add their preference to the tax act is certainly more powerful than mine.

I am not alone. Other members on this side of the House believe in comprehensive tax reform as well. I believe that only when we as elected members of Parliament come together as a fist, rather than going in 10 different directions, will we have the ability to move the officials in the Department of Finance. This is something the elected members of Parliament put here by the people can do, not the unaccountable bureaucrats in finance. That is the challenge.

I do not mind saying to members opposite that there are some days when I wonder whether I am spinning my wheels. However, I want members to know that I really believe if we all work together on this, that it is achievable. Why will it be achievable now? It is no different from the music industry. How did some of the best talent in our country make it? They went to the United States, made a hit and came back as superstars.

Now both the Republicans and Democrats in the United States of America are looking very closely at reforming the whole system. We will be consistent, traditional Canadians. If they implement it, we will follow rather than having the guts to take the lead.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the article in the New York Times talked about the new bipartisan spirit that is sweeping the United States Congress right now on comprehensive tax reform. It talks about Republicans Dole and Kemp and Democrats Bradley and Gephardt all working together on this issue. I note the last sentence of the article, which reads: ``This 25 per cent solution builds on the reform that Bradley and Senate finance chairman Bob Packwood, Republican, worked out in the mid-eighties and it need not wait for a Republican president''.

What concerns me about the fact that the United States is seized with this issue is that if it implements this before we do, then once again we will not only be following, we will lose a tremendous amount of investment. Some of our larger corporations, high achievers, income earners and entrepreneurs are naturally going to flow to that market where they can achieve more in the way they earn their incomes. Therefore, we should somehow figure out a way to get involved in this debate in a very aggressive way.

I read a paper just before Christmas written by an economist from the province of Quebec by the name of Pierre Fortin. He is now one of the most respected economists in the province and one of the advisers to the Bloc Quebecois. Obviously, he would give strategy on its future. He may not be a close adviser but he is someone who is listened to by certain members of the Bloc. He too is advocating this type of a system.

The best way to handle the tax act of Canada is to go right back to basics and flush out all the special privileges, preferences and loopholes. If we added up the value of all the preferences and tax loopholes in the last 15 years that were given to foreign multinationals and the top 150 companies in Canada, we would see that those preferences or, as some would call them, tax grants, would add up to close to $500 billion which is equivalent to almost the national debt.

I believe it is time for us, as a country, to get involved in this debate in an aggressive way.

[Income Tax Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to continue to talk about the debate on tax reform.

Something that I believe concerns all members of the House of Commons today is the fact that the world monetary system does not seem to be functioning properly. In all the major financial institutions, the banks, are sections where they are dealing with derivative funds, working around the clock seven days a week. The flow of capital being perpetrated right now affects all countries, managed by a very few men and women in my judgment in an unaccountable way, is one of the major reasons why we have these major fluctuations in interest rates and in exchange rates.

When we look at all the activity around the derivatives, around all the speculation on the stock market, we discover that the amount of productivity related directly to the manufacturing of a product or service is very small in relation to the amount of speculative movement within those markets. Somebody writing

in the New York Times the other day said that for every $1,000 exchanged on the stock market only about $1 is related directly to productivity.

The more we get into this flow of capital, the more we come back to the fact that our basic tax act is in need of major reform. This is an area where all members of the House have to come together to address the problem in a comprehensive way.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects every person who generates income in this country. As we all know the current tax system is a disincentive to productivity. The harder one works and the more one makes on the gross income, it seems that the less one has left in one's pocket.

What we see now, whether it be an individual or a corporation, is the flight of capital, the flight of talent out of our country. It is easy today to move capital around, move companies around by pushing buttons but we cannot move people around.

We are a nation. We have built one of the greatest infrastructures in the world in terms of promoting our quality of life, whether it be our health care system, our educational system or our social safety net. All of a sudden, these things are in jeopardy. They are in jeopardy not because of waste and not because people are abusing the system. We must eliminate the abuse of the system, waste and overlap. No one is debating that.

However, we face a more fundamental problem. Because we are now legislators who are on our knees to the capitalist markets, in my judgment we are becoming less liberal in the way we look after some of the disadvantaged people in our community. We are becoming less sensitive to the whole purpose of why we are here.

We come to this Chamber not to dot i 's and cross t 's, we come to debate ideas that will either maintain or improve the quality of life in the country. Right now we are not controlling the agenda. The people who are controlling capital flows outside of sovereign states are the ones who are having the most effect on the decisions we make.

Our whole thrust as the House of Commons for the last 10 or 12 years has been deficit and debt. A lot of the deficit and debt is exacerbated by a world monetary policy which is not working and ultimately by a tax system which is not working. That is why I feel it is very important, as I previously mentioned, that we change the basic tax act.

One of the things we must be aware of is the fact that our neighbours to the south are starting to look at comprehensive tax reform in a very serious way. In fact, just before question period today I was handed an article which was written in the New York Times by William Safire-

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

There is no worry. It is on the record. It is publicly known if one goes to the registrar. As long as I am not in here trying to lobby the cabinet or officials on behalf of my previous employer, I do not see where the difficulty is.

I do not understand where the members on the opposite side are coming from. What I find distressful about the tone and the approach from the members opposite is that it seems to me they are suggesting if we had some kind of a relationship with the private sector or a high profile organization we are putting ourselves in a position where we cannot be a member of Parliament where we can be above reproach.

I expect that all of my actions in relation to my previous employer to be scrutinized. I expect if I have received a campaign fund or received moneys from my previous employer to promote a particular cause or whatever, I do not have any problem with that being analysed. The opposition is really missing the point. It is saying that when one has a relationship with a major corporation that person's ability to do work as an MP is questioned.

That is a sad state. I do not want my friends in the House who are lawyers, doctors or from other professions to take this the wrong way, but we need more men and more women who have had entrepreneurial experience, who have had business backgrounds.

With that type of experience we might be able to re-energize that part of our responsibility which has to do with the economy. When opposition members single out relationships that existed either in the past or in the present with corporations or multinationals because I either worked for them or had a relationship with them, it casts aspersions on that relationship in a way that is counterproductive to why we are all here.

The essence of this bill has to do with increasing the transparency, making sure all the activities of lobbyists and their relationship with the government are enhanced, documented, that we have an ability to get a sense of how we as members of Parliament are being lobbied and sometimes even manipulated. Does this bill meet that test? I believe it does.

We have the appointment of the ethics counsellor, a new creation of this government, and as time moves on that position will evolve and be refined. The code of conduct for MPs we as a committee will work on, refine and improve. We have committed ourselves to that process and if we continue this type of debate eventually the final product will be something all Canadians and all members of Parliament can be proud of.

The bill goes a long way in taking us in that direction.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this legislation.

I believe that the members of the Bloc are not being fair, in the sense that they are not explaining to Canadians some of the real amendments that have been made to this bill, which have increased transparency way beyond the previous piece of legislation. The member says there are no increases in transparency. He obviously has not read the bill.

I would like to take a moment on this whole notion of the Power Corporation. Let us talk about Mr. Desmarais. I cannot understand why the opposition casts aspersions on people who have had previous experience with leaders from the business sector, the entrepreneurial sector.

I have a great difficulty with that. I was in the business realm before I came here. I worked for a large multinational corporation, Magna International. As members of the House know, when we take a position in cabinet or as a parliamentary secretary and we sit down with the ethics counsellor we are asked about our previous lives, about our relationships. It is all on the public record.

The position members of Parliament take when they are on the government side, when they have had a previous experience with an industry or a corporation that deals with government from time to time, is that one absents oneself from decisions taken that directly affect that corporation.

If transparency and accountability are the objective of this bill it would seem to me that in the case of the Power Corporation, which the opposition has mentioned several times today, or the Desmarais connection, to use the member's words, there is

probably more scrutiny on that relationship than any other relationship in the House because it involves the Prime Minister.

Members of the opposition are trying to insinuate that in some way, shape or form this bill inhibits transparency or would diminish the exposure or the analysis or the relationship between members of Parliament and their previous lives or their continued relationship with previous organizations. I cannot figure out where they are coming from. As an MP who comes from that background, I do not want to hide my relationship with my previous employer.