He has been doing some good field work.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 22% of the vote.
Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act November 1st, 1995
He has been doing some good field work.
Points Of Order November 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, since I am the one whip previous to whom everybody is referring, I thought I should make a quick intervention.
The point our party whip is making, and I checked it with our assistant, is that there was an intervention made by you in the Chair with a member of the House. It is that intervention which is not included in Hansard . That is the point. We respect, and I certainly do, everything that has been said here, including the intervention by the member for Kingston and the Islands.
It is okay to correct words and that is what the member for Kingston and the Islands was pointing out. But when an entire intervention is left out, it is a serious omission. I do not believe we are trying to trip up the government; we are just saying that an intervention is missing. That is the concern because what if at some time in the future it is an important intervention? That is the point.
We do intend, hope and will always try to make sure that we continue in the same spirit of co-operation that we have established over the course of time.
Income Tax October 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, let me try again.
The charter of rights and freedoms has 7,000 words, the Bible 773,000 words, the Income Tax Act has 1,200,000 words. Our current system of taxation has become an enormous social experiment which can no longer be understood, much less justified. Given that the United States is looking at flat tax reforms being brought forward by almost every Republican candidate for the next presidential election and this parliamentary secretary jokes about simplicity, when will the government follow suit and offer Canadians some hope in the form of tax reform and tax relief?
Income Tax October 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, regardless of the outcome tonight, the government should proceed with important, positive and constructive changes in the area of taxation.
The Liberal red book clearly states that fairness, simplicity and harmonization should be the key objectives of Liberal tax policies.
If they want to meet this promise, when will the Minister of Finance commit his government to full parliamentary review of our convoluted, complicated, confusing income tax system?
Small Business Loans Act October 25th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, this latest exchange between the member for Durham and the member for St. Albert reminds me of the similarity between a computer and an accountant: we have to punch the information into both of them.
Given that the banks these days have the reputation of giving you an umbrella on a sunny day and taking it away on a rainy day, and given that banks today have the reputation of tightening up their credit, I would like the member for Durham to tell us how this will force banks to increase their loan portfolio to small businesses.
Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995 October 19th, 1995
I am sticking to the subject a lot more than the previous speaker. I am straying a bit here when I am talking about an agreement with another country.
Once again, when they got elected did the Prime Minister renegotiate as he promised he would? He did not. He passed it in substantially the same form it was in when the Conservatives negotiated it. I find it ironic this government says one thing in opposition and does another thing when in power which means it is still the status quo. It means nothing has changed although we now have a Liberal government instead of a Conservative one.
While we support Bill C-105, there are still a few questions I would like to address. I would like to know why our diplomats abroad can initiate legislation that makes our taxes lower and our tax rules simpler when our politicians will not do the same.
Why is it that when the politicians approach the department heads and say: "We would like to make the Income Tax Act less confusing, less complicated and less convoluted. We would like to make it more simple. We understand it is fair but we would like to make it fair in a way that everybody understands it, and could we not lower spending a bit? Since they are making spending cuts they could pass the benefit to taxpayers". The bureaucrats say no because any time we give up a tax point or two we never get it back, so the answer is no. And that is it. That is as far as the politicians go.
Except for the member for Broadview-Greenwood who since 1989 has consistently pushed for a simplification of the taxation system, there is nobody else over there that has as openly, vocally and energetically pursued this topic. I would like to be another one of those people who pushes the government into doing it. To the politicians: Do not let the bureaucrats say it will not work. To the finance minister: Demand a review of the taxation system to see if it can be changed.
We all know high taxes are an impediment to growth in the economy. Why do we not remove the impediment? Why do we not lower taxes with some spending cuts that the Liberal government is now finally making? It is finally listening to us; it is finally doing something to the benefit of many Canadians. Combine that with a genuine review of the entire taxation system which will then help to create jobs.
The opportunities for gains in the economy by implementing tax reform are tremendous. By not doing it, by not exploring it, those doors remain closed and the opportunity to restore faith, hope and savings for taxpayers are eliminated. That debt will never, ever be addressed by adding to it. We have to get to a zero deficit, not a 3 per cent of GDP and dig the hole slower. They are still digging the hole and are just adding to the problem.
If we want to get rid of the problem, lower spending, raise taxes to a zero point and the deficit is gone, if that is what the Liberal government thinks is the problem. However, that is not the problem. The problem is the debt and our high levels of taxation.
Diplomats recognize globally that we must have equality, that we need to have the lowest rates of taxation possible to attract investment and capital while reciprocating with other countries by offering them the same deals in our country. They do that. Look through those agreements with the incentives and the opportunities between countries. It is great. It works well for exports and imports. What is saving our economy today? NAFTA. Trade with other nations.
We need to treat each of our provinces, including that wonderful province of Quebec which belongs in Canada and will stay in Canada, the same way we treat other nations. Let us make deals among ourselves, province to province, that eliminate the barriers to trade and introduce treaties. Let us have only one level of government looking after a service. Let us define specifically which level of government should look after which program. Let us get some savings and some gains into our system so we can lower spending thus lowering taxes, so we can remove the impediments to our sluggish economy.
I am trying to make an analogy between the good aspects of trade treaties we are making with other countries. Why do we not use those diplomats instead of the politicians sitting over there in the front row to make our negotiations with the deputy ministers in order to implement the kind of reforms we need in this country? These diplomats do a much better job than the elected politicians because the elected politicians are afraid to stand up to the bureaucracy. I encourage similar actions here at home in the form of tax reform as we find in deals like this.
In conclusion, I hope this is the last fluffy type bill we have before this House and that we can get on with more important bills. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, you could put the question, put the bill through committee of the whole and then we could debate the health act.
Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995 October 19th, 1995
That is the second time in two years I have been applauded by members opposite; I appreciate it.
The purpose of Bill C-105 is to implement the tax conventions between Canada and the republics of Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago and a protocol between Canada and the republic of Hungary for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of income tax evasion.
It is just like Bill S-9. We are here debating bills and for all intents and purposes they are already done deals. The agreements have already been signed by the bureaucrats and diplomats and now we have to give them a formal blessing. We have spent two days doing that. It is important to do it, so let us get on with the business of getting it done.
Tax treaties like this one along with their amending protocols have two main purposes: the elimination of double taxation on goods, services and people that flow back and forth across borders and the prevention of fiscal evasion by the same people. The treaties and protocols being signed are patterned on the model of the double taxation convention prepared by the OECD. That is supposed to be our guarantee that everything in here is wonderful, good for everybody, and we do not even have to look into the details. The Reform Party supports these and any initiatives that help eliminate barriers to the globalization of our economy.
However, in the debate on Bill C-105 I noticed when the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister made his presentation on the bill today that he said there was nothing contentious in the bill. That almost made me want to look into it and reread it, as if he were trying to hide some of the sneaky little deals found in Bill S-9 that the member for Gander-Grand Falls pointed out. That Liberal member pointed out how bad Bill S-9 was, that it was not really a Liberal bill, and that he was disappointed the Liberal Party could support it.
That brings me to another point on the Liberal government. It struck me interesting in reviewing and researching protocol bills and tax concession bills between countries how the Liberal government had flip-flopped on its anti-free trade policies of the past. It is actually approving bills that lower taxes. It is actually approving bills that eliminate the barriers to trade. It is actually doing something they were against when in opposition and we are for.
It makes me wonder whether the finance minister is in charge or the deputy minister is in charge who worked for the Conservative government? Which set of people, which grouping, the politicians or the bureaucrats, is in charge of the government?
In 1991 when the finance minister was in opposition he gave his opinion on trade conventions, treaties and tax concession conventions. What did he ask the government to do? What did he say to ensure the deals were in the best interests of all Canadians? To put it in context, when in opposition the finance minister in referring to the Conservative government said, as indicated in Hansard :
In the free trade agreement this government, so desperate for a success even if it was only paper thin, and so afraid of failure, sat down cowardly with the Americans and gave up the ghost before negotiations started.
Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995 October 19th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I hope to stick to Bill C-105 and keep it kind of short.
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984 October 18th, 1995
I also point out that there are inconsistencies here. I will compliment the member for being consistent. However I will criticize his party for being inconsistent.
The rest of the items on the bill I have covered. We do support it. I did have some time to talk about it, and I did feel it was important that as the representative for our party on the bill and as a supporter of the bill for our party I should set some of the record straight. I have to sort of pre-empt the member for Gander-Grand Falls, because I am sure he is going to say a few other words.
The intent of the bill and what it does accomplish is what the future of the country holds. We have to negotiate with other countries. We have to be creating a level playing field. We have to have taxation levels that are similar. We have to have reciprocity agreements that make the deals both ways. As the flow of capital and human resources goes back and forth, all around the world, as we push buttons on a computer and transfer large sums of money, just as an entry item on a ledger sheet, we have to be able to be competitive. First and foremost, that is what Bill S-9 does, it keeps us competitive. It is only the small minded, the narrow minded people in the House who want to protect themselves who would argue that this is not a fair and good reciprocity agreement.
There is nothing for me to add to this. I know there was a lot of confusion. I hope I have cleared up some of that confusion, why our party supports it. I hope I have addressed those constituents of the member for Kamloops. Also I hope I have put to rest this business about picking on the rich all the time, because the rich do pay their fair share. I do not believe this is a bill that satisfies the rich, because I believe people who make between $50,000 and $100,000 and own property down in the States are not really wealthy in this day and age, to make $60,000 or $70,000. In that case, with $64,000, plus the perks we get, everybody in this place would be rich. I would say that a lot of people in the House would not say they are rich.
That is another debate. That is another issue. I bring it up only because of the confusion introduced into the bill by the member for Kamloops and by the member for Gander-Grand Falls. It is worthy of support. The sooner we get it over with, the sooner we can get back to real issues and real bills and get on with our economic lives.
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984 October 18th, 1995
I believe when it comes to the vote he will have to be very careful how he handles himself. Perhaps he might have a cold or something. We certainly would not want the member to be in trouble with his party, since that whip is cracking pretty hard over there, as evidenced by the last sitting.
Some of the issues the member for Gander-Grand Falls pointed out are based on his personal crusade against the bill. He has taken a lot of effort and looked into it. He does believe that because it means less revenue for Canada it is wrong. He does believe it is a tax system for the rich. He does point out that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois support it, as we do. Yet he never says openly, aggressively, that the Liberal government now supports it as well.
Perhaps when he has his intervention on the bill, because I am sure he wants to speak to it and address it as well, he would maybe tell us on this side of the House why it is that when they were in opposition and the Prime Minister and his group were over here this member was attacking the bill at the time, with their blessing obviously, with the finance minister's encouragement, with the leader of the party's encouragement. Why when they are on the other side of the House all of a sudden did they flip? Do they become puppets of the bureaucracy? Do they become puppets of the bureaucrats? Do they have to say yes to what those people tell them to do? When they were over here they criticized it. They are over there and now they are endorsing it.
It now takes one lone voice, one lonely voice in that huge pack of 177 members over there to remind them that when they were over here they were not for this thing, they were not for the bill. They did not want to do reciprocity with the States like this. They were against stuff like that. They were against NAFTA. They were against all these things. Now they are for all this.
I do not understand. I do not mean to be taking the member for Gander-Grand Falls to task. In a way I am giving him a compliment, but in another way-