Nelson Riis

[Cn Rail, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Today we learned of another astonishing initiative taken by this government, the privatization of CN and as we learned earlier presumably with no limit on foreign ownership.

When we consider this alongside the abandoning of the Crow rate, the reduced support for health care, post-secondary education, social programs, cultural programs and I could go on, this government is beginning to make Brian Mulroney's Tories look very good.

When we look at what this government has done over the last 18 months, what is it that is Liberal about this Liberal government?

[Funding For Cultural Organizations, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I raised with the Minister of Finance the question of an inheritance tax.

I refer to that now very well quoted StatsCan report that examined the basic causes of the accumulated debt of the country and found that 44 per cent of the debt was the result of the compounding effect of a record high interest rate or monetary policy. Fifty per cent of the debt was the result of forgone revenue due to a series of tax concessions. One could call a number of these tax loopholes.

A member of the government, when he wrote to the Department of National Revenue recently, asked whether someone entertaining clients as a business person, whether their hotel expenses, a massage at a fitness club, a dinner at a posh restaurant, the cost of an escort service, night club shows, floor shows, dinners including $200 bottles of wine and a cruise on the river, would be included as a legitimate tax deduction.

The report back from the revenue department said yes, they would be, including the escort service. It was suggested the way the escort service was described ought to be changed, that they were essentially tour guides, body guards or interpreters. To describe them to be for sexual purposes would not be considered acceptable by Revenue Canada but they could be considered under these other categories.

The point I was making was if so much of our debt is as a result of the number of tax loopholes, why do we not close the loophole of the inheritance aspect?

I pointed out to the Minister of Finance that virtually every OECD country, with the exception of two, has an inheritance tax for those people who inherit large amounts of money. I am not talking about a home or a family farm or a family business. I am talking about someone who receives an inheritance, let us say, in excess of $1 million. Virtually every country in the world would ask that a tax be paid on that vast inheritance. We could consider a ceiling of $1 million.

The Minister of Finance spoke around the issue. In this desperate time when we are seeking to find ways and means of eliminating the deficit and the debt, when every other country in the world virtually has a tax on the inheritance of large amounts of money, why would we not?

It is fair to say that the primary benefactors of this tax loophole are the very wealthy, people who inherit $20 million or $50 million through their families at the time of death. We do not have that tax.

I asked the Minister of Finance to explain why we would not have such a tax at a time when we are cutting back on every social program imaginable, every environmental program imaginable, on health care, on post-secondary education, on vocational training and so on. I have yet to receive an answer.

Perhaps when I sit down the person responding on behalf of the government will clarify why Canada is rather unique in this aspect and has chosen not to tax those individuals that inherit vast amounts of money.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from citizens of the same communities.

This petition indicates that Canadians are becoming increasingly fearful of walking on the streets in their neighbourhoods. They believe that many convicted violent and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely. The petitioners simply ask the House of Commons and the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps are necessary to amend Canada's Criminal Code and parole system to ensure safety and peace in our neighbourhoods.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today on behalf of residents of Blue River, Avola, Birch Island, Clearwater, Barrière, Darfield, Little Fort and Peneplain Lake.

The petitioners oppose Bill C-68, the bill referring to firearms legislation, and suggest that registration will do virtually nothing to limit the number of people who will be killed by firearms in the future.

I support the petition.

[Grandparent Year Act, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, to add my comments to the previous speaker's on setting aside 1995 as the year of the grandparent, it is a first class idea. I would have liked to have seen that followed through.

However, my few moments are to talk about a question I raised on April 5 regarding the funding of health care. It is fair to say that one of the major factors that distinguishes Canada from the United States is our support of medicare. It is an identifying feature of being a Canadian and sets us apart from the United States.

We see now the possibility of the health care system and medicare system being seriously eroded as a result of the last budget, but also the two budgets leading up to it. An integral part of medicare is the universality provision. Whether one is a baker or a banker one ought to have the same access to health care wherever one happens to live in Canada.

We have held up with pride the universality of medicare as something that distinguishes us from our neighbours to the south. I do not have to remind anyone of the serious differences in the two systems. In Canada we spend a little less than 10 per cent of GDP on health care. In United States, its citizens spend a little less than 14 per cent of their GDP on health care. While their health care system costs much more, the wealthiest of Americans are well served by the system.

The average income earner in the United States who has to pay somewhere between $5,000 and $7,000 a year for coverage that is actually less than that in Canada is adequately covered. Somewhere between 30 and 40 million Americans have little or no health coverage.

As a distinguishing factor, what I was pointing out in my question was in recognition of that old adage that "he who pays the piper calls the tune". When one sees the tremendous reductions in funding for social programs including health care it becomes quite alarming.

While there is no direct effect on this year's funding for health care, the province of British Columbia alone in its cash entitlement under the Canada social transfer will be $371 million less in 1996-97 and $684 million less in 1997-98 than it would have been provided under EPF and CAP funding. These amounts are in addition to the $180 million negative impact of 1994 federal budget on transfers. The net effect of this is that in 1997-98 the entitlement for British Columbia will be $801 million less than the province received in 1994-95.

In summary, because of these massive reductions in transfer funding for health care, we have the likelihood of the health care system evolving into a patchwork across the country. We will have 12 different health care systems. No doubt some of the provinces will be able to withstand the offloading more than others.

The premier of the province of Alberta has indicated an interest in extra billing and privatizing a whole number of services based on the American model. It is certainly a direction that Canadians will not want to take.

[Petitions, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners point out that many violent offenders and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely or are being released without proper treatment and rehabilitation. They believe that those people convicted of dangerous and sexual offences ought to remain incarcerated until they have successfully undergone treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely rehabilitated. They are asking that the government take whatever steps are necessary to assure this.

[Petitions, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of now close to 27,000 residents of the Kamloops area who point out that they believe many violent offenders and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely and are being released without proper treatment and rehabilitation. They believe that those convicted of these types of offences should remain incarcerated until they have successfully undergone treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely rehabilitated.

Therefore, they are asking the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to change the Criminal Code to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that these changes take place.

[Health, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health, who will know by media reports this morning that the Conservative government in Alberta has indicated that it is going to be asking for amendments to the Canada Health Act to allow for private hospitals and that the premier of Alberta is supporting a two-tier health care system.

She will also know that his supporters voted on the weekend to free abandoned hospitals for the private sector.

Since the Minister of Health has cut back so severely in terms of health care payments to the provinces, how on earth could she do anything to stop this erosion of medicare and health care in Canada that we have known over the last number of decades?

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I want the record to show it was a Liberal member at least-

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, my comments will be very short.

This is one of those moments when the House of Commons works incredibly well on an issue in that all sides see merit in it. It is appropriate to recognize that all those who have spoken have done so in a sense as co-sponsors of this initiative. The positive aspect of Private Members' Business is that it is not a party event or initiative; it is simply an initiative that individual members take and it is supported in that fashion.

In light of what has been said and some concerns my hon. colleague raised regarding the term solidarity and whether that was appropriate or necessary, on second thought I tend to agree that mention of the term solidarity is not absolutely necessary. It is something that could be examined quickly in committee.

For clarification, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the members of the House to send this off to committee for further consideration.