Dennis Mills

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member. I cannot get over the fact that the member would try to compare the RRSP system, which is essentially a government created system, not for a large number of Canadians, with the Canada pension plan which is something that every Canadian has access to. It is probably only about 40 per cent of Canadians who have even the ability to participate in an RRSP plan.

I want to challenge the member on one particular program of government that I personally am very proud of, multiculturalism. I happen to believe that multiculturalism is one the jewels

of this country and because of people being very frivolous with it we are about to lose it.

For over 20 years, since 1971, we invested, promoted and encouraged Canadians to preserve their language and culture of origin. Today because of that investment by Canadian taxpayers we are recognized as one of the greatest trading countries on the planet. One of the reasons we are and that we have that trading advantage is that we have people who have preserved their language and culture of origin and it has given us very special access to these lucrative markets all around the world. Multiculturalism has also made us a tourism asset which if we ever got our marketing act together could be another envy of the world.

I think the Reform Party should be very careful when it is criticizing these programs and just wants to sweep them away. Renew them, eliminate waste, fiscal discipline, I support all of that. We would be absolute crazies if we did anything to take away our multiculturalism policy which is the envy right now. The United States is now in the process of spending billions of dollars to try to promote a multicultural reality because it had its melting pot theory. We were so far ahead of it and the Reform Party has missed the whole point.

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the member for Rosemont that I too share his view that the obsession with ratcheting inflation down to zero per cent during the last four years for all intents and purposes killed the economy of this country. It broke the entrepreneurial spirit of thousands of small and medium size business men and women, which ultimately led to unemployment numbers that we are still fighting to cope with and put people back to work.

My concern is the fact that the member did not put forward some specific recommendations on how we can fire up that economy again. I realize that the member talked about excessive numbers of public servants when we have done some downsizing in energy and other departments of government. The cost by having those public servants working or the savings that would have been made is not enough to really get this economy going again.

I wonder if the member would put a couple of specific recommendations on the floor of this House on how we could fire up this economy and get people back to work. As I have said, it is important to have fiscal discipline in this country but my concern is that we are not spending enough creative time in dealing with constructive ways, creative ways on how we put the 2.2 million people who are unemployed in this country back to work.

Could the member put a couple of specific ideas on the floor of the House?

[Supply, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to build on the last sentence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, that we are here not to just talk about fiscal discipline but we are also here to talk about creating an environment for growth that will put people back to work.

As I review the taxpayers' budget put forward by the Reform Party today I felt that specifics related to job creation and putting people back to work were pretty thin.

I would like to get reassurance from the parliamentary secretary that we as a government have not wavered from our

commitment and our focus on putting Canadians back to work. Ultimately I believe that the two million plus people who do not have work are a heck of a lot more concerned about our commitment to that reality.

This whole debate on deficit and fiscal discipline which has pretty much crowded that part of the debate out also needs some discussion. I wonder if I could get some reassurance from the parliamentary secretary.

[Microcell 1-2-1, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, MicroCell 1-2-1 is turning on. The personal communications system revolution in North America has started and Canada will be the first.

MicroCell 1-2-1 has the vision, the people and the technology and the $500 million in capital required to start building the most advanced personal communications network in Canada.

The time has come to celebrate the launch of this new era and to do that MicroCell 1-2-1 invites every Canadian child and his grandparents on Christmas Eve to visit one of the following locations and call anyone they love in the world on their public network for free.

The freedom of expression sites are the Place Fleur de Lys in Quebec, Eaton Centre in Montreal, the Bayshore Shopping Centre in Ottawa, the Pacific Centre in Vancouver and the Community Info Access Centres of Toronto.

Free long distance calls for Canadian children and their grandparents on Christmas Eve; watch your local newspapers for further details and other locations to be announced.

Congratulations to MicroCell.

[Pictou Landing Indian Agreement Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs I respond to my colleague from Davenport.

At the United Nations on November 18, 1994 countries voted on a resolution which was presented before the UN disarmament committee. The resolution called for the International Court of Justice to rule on the question of the legality of the threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Canada abstained on the resolution and gave an explanation for its vote which made clear that while Canada endorses in principle the objective of the resolution, that is the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, it did not agree that this was the most effective means of achieving that goal.

The government has and continues to attach particular importance to international arms control and disarmament. We are working actively in international fora on such issues as START I and START II, the ongoing reduction talks, the extension of the non-proliferation treaty and and the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Canada also vigorously supports international negotiations to prevent the transfer of nuclear weapons technology and materials, to reduce and eventually eliminate existing stocks and to ban the production of fissile materials.

Canada is concerned that some states may use the reference to the International Court of Justice as a means to prevent or delay decisions on these international initiatives on the basis that the larger issue of the legality of nuclear weapons was being dealt with in another forum.

We believe that the negotiation of and adherence to binding multilateral treaties is a more effective approach to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons than an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

In addition, Canada was concerned that this resolution could place the International Court of Justice in a difficult situation. It is possible that the credibility of the court could be harmed if it were to rule that nuclear weapons were illegal and the permanent members of the UN Security Council who currently possess such weapons were forced to ignore it.

Finally the International Court of Justice already has before it the similar proposition following a reference to the court by the World Health Assembly. A second reference does not appear to be necessary.

The decision of the government to abstain on this matter in the company of only Norway among NATO countries, is an indication that we are prepared to accept different approaches to meeting the challenges at hand.

The resolution will be before the United Nations plenary on December 15, 1994 and Canada will abstain for the same reasons.

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1994]

What is your rate?

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1994]

No. The problem with trying to achieve tax reform is not the men and women of the Chamber. I believe most men and women who sit in the Chamber hear from constituents about problems and complaints in the tax act.

The problem is Canadians complain day in and day out about the unfair, inefficient, complex tax system. I should not say never, because I have received about 100,000 letters from a community of about 12 million to 15 million taxpayers. I would say that 90 per cent of Canadians complain but they do not do enough. They do not get up to make phone calls or write letters to their MPs on whether they agree or disagree with the status quo or whether they have a better idea.

I believe part of the reason we have tax inertia is that Canadians have not pressed enough of us hard enough. In spite of all that, I personally and passionately believe that if we were to take up this challenge and have a single tax system we would have the most exciting economy on the planet. It would be the fastest way to deal with deficit and debt. In the next budget I hope we can get a reference for this system.

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1994]

No, that is not true. The Minister of Finance listens to us but he does not listen to just a few of us. He listens to all of us. In order to move an issue forward as comprehensive as this one it cannot be done by one, two, fifty or sixty members. We need one hundred and fifty members to move the issue forward.

Our team presented the idea of a single tax system to the finance committee looking for GST alternatives about two months ago. Opposition members started questioning at the end of our presentation and the finance critic from the Bloc said: "We have no criticism of what you are trying to do but we might not agree with some of your credits". He basically said: "When we become an independent country this is the type of tax system we will have. Why would we begrudge it to the rest of Canada?"

I felt that was a pretty straight comment from the Bloc. Obviously none of us in terms of the Reform and Liberals believe in wanting to destroy the country, but he was certainly direct about the type of tax system they would have. The Reform critic for finance was there and supportive, on side. However there is a missing factor in that equation.

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your generous remarks but after five years of trying to advance the debate on tax reform in a comprehensive way sometimes I wonder what you have to do. It is not just props; I think you even have to go beyond props.

At any rate the point I wanted to make was about Canada having a single tax system. On both the personal and corporate sides the rate would be around 20 per cent. On the personal side there would be very generous deductions to make sure those people at the lower income spectrum were protected. If we had a progressive single tax system like that I believe capital would flow into this country in a way we could not imagine. Canada would be the home for capital from all over the world.

It is not unlike the grocery store: if there is a sudden glut of potatoes or of chicken the price goes down. It is not different with capital. If the capital were suddenly parked here in large amounts it would put downward pressure on interest rates. This would mean it would be much easier for us to service our deficit and debt. More important, it would provide capital at an inexpensive price for those one million small and medium size entrepreneurs, those men and women who need to be fired up to get the economy going.

I attended a townhall meeting with my colleague from Nepean last night at which we had a little session on small business and tax reform. One person in the crowd said: "I don't like this kind of a system. I would like a two-tier system. If you make up to $60,000 you pay 20 per cent but once you get over $60,000 you pay 40 per cent". I told him that I totally disagreed with that. I believe the harder we work the more we achieve, and the more we make the more we should have left in our pockets. We should and we have always rewarded productivity in Canada.

I do not believe for a second in a system where people who make millions of dollars get off with paying nothing. I believe in an airtight system and the single tax system is an airtight system. It does not matter whether one is making $100,000, $500,000 or a million, it is 20 per cent; it is airtight. It is airtight on the corporate side as well. If we had a system like that in Canada we would do much to stimulate economic activity.

There is something else we have to be concerned about. In the last three weeks our neighbours to the south have been talking about the issue nearly every day in Washington. There has been a change in the Congress of the United States. Most of the people who were elected three weeks ago in the United States are now starting to talk on almost a daily basis about a single tax system.

That concerns me. If the United States adopts a single tax system before we do we would have a problem. It may be difficult to move money to the islands, to move money to Switzerland or to move a business to another part of South America or some part of eastern Europe, but it will be very easy for Canadians to cross the 49th parallel.

I am standing here today in support of every one of the amendments in Bill C-59. They are targeted amendments. They are all related to generating economic activity. They are simplifying the tax system. I do not disagree with any part of the bill because it is taking us in a positive direction in a constructive way.

My challenge to all members of the House of Commons is that it is good but it is tinkering. It is time to go the whole nine yards, clean up the whole system and start from scratch. If we did that all Canadians would cheer the House. We would have rebuilt trust and respect. More important than all those things or equally as important, we would ignite the entrepreneurial spirit of the country. Our ability to cope and handle our deficit and our debt would be much more focused and much easier to address.

This will probably be one of the last days in this year that we have an opportunity to send out a message to all officials in the Department of Finance, to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and to all my other colleagues.

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1994]

Nick, where are you when I need you?

At any rate when we had public debates and it came to the issue of tax reform, the Reform Party candidate would stand up and say: "When it comes to tax reform we support Mr. Mills' idea of a single tax system. We call ours the proportional tax but generally speaking we think he is heading in the right direction". Actually the Reform Party member helped me get elected because some of the things that my constituents perhaps did not like about me were offset by the fact that the Reform Party candidate helped me push forward on the single tax.

Here we are one year later and we have not been able to spark an interest in comprehensive tax reform in this House of Commons. I want members to know that we are missing a great opportunity. You might ask: Why does the government not take it up on its own initiative? It does not work like that around here. As members know, the essence of a democracy is good solid debate. There has to be a to and fro. A good opposition has the ability to move an agenda item from the back burner to the front burner.

On the issue of tax reform the opposition has done a lousy job and that is in spite of my giving them a good push every now and again. At any rate, I want to say to the people of Canada that I passionately believe the single biggest thing we could do to spark economic activity in this country is to act on comprehensive tax reform.

I say that because we as a government are counting on the small and medium size businesses to recharge and reignite this economy. I hear constantly as I am sure other members do from those same small and medium size businesses that the paper burden relating to the income tax system, the complexity of it, and the unfairness of it on the corporate and personal side make it a disincentive to productivity. It is a disincentive to risk taking. It is a disincentive to taking that extra shot.

I believe that. In fact a lot of entrepreneurs who have achieved success are not only frustrated by the tax act of Canada but many of our superachiever entrepreneurs are currently being taxed at a rate of 58 per cent rate when the federal and provincial taxes are combined. Many of them are starting to do two things. Some of them are parking their resources, their investments and their cash offshore. The second thing is some are starting to move themselves offshore. They are not just moving their cash but some of them are actually taking their talent and walking into better tax regimes.

When we have a bill like C-59 with all of its pluses and advantages in moving and improving the tax act it gives us the opportunity to look at the big picture over the next eight to ten years.

If Canada does not have a globally competitive tax system we are going to see talent and capital fly out of this country at a rate we cannot imagine. When capital flies out interest rates go up. It is like any other commodity. A store that has only a few pieces of chicken or a few potatoes can demand a higher price. Capital is no different.

When capital is not in the marketplace or if there is restricted amounts of capital, interest rates go up. That causes a tremendous strain on our ability to service our deficit and our debt. It is a tremendous burden. It is tough for our entrepreneurs. When they go to the bankers and try to rent money from them, those rates are higher as well.

If Canada had a globally competitive tax regime, if we had something like the single tax system where-