Herb Dhaliwal

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker. I see the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is here so I will conclude my remarks by saying that as a country we have to recognize, as do all the people of Quebec, that we will be stronger if we are united as Canadians. We will be able to create jobs and have a future for our children if we stay together. We will not be strong if we are divided. We will be strong if we are united and we will be able to build a strong future for the generations to come.

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak once again on Bill C-105.

This bill shows that you need to build an infrastructure whenever you deal with trade with other countries. That infrastructure takes a substantial amount of effort to create so that there is trade and investment taking place among different countries.

Looking at the legislation, as I said earlier in the debate, there is an agreement with 55 countries. I know members of the Bloc think it is very simple and easy to build a relationship with other countries. They think it is very easy to set up treaties, make agreements and develop trade with other countries. It takes a very long time to build the infrastructure and the treaties. It takes a long time to make agreements and create the organizations to develop trade and exchanges, rules, regulations and understandings among different countries.

It does not take a genius to know that if the infrastructure is broken, if those agreements are broken sometimes they cannot be renegotiated. For example, some people in the Bloc think it would be very easy to negotiate a new NAFTA. That simply is not the case. Look at the world trade agreement. It took years and years to negotiate that, to develop a consensus among so many countries.

This bill shows that as a country, Canada needs the tremendous infrastructures we have built in trade, transportation and organizations. These were not created overnight. They took years and years to develop. It also takes expertise.

I sometimes wonder what the people in the Bloc are thinking when they say that they can do the same thing overnight and that they will be able to set up all the agreements the next day and do all the things it took Canada so long to do. It makes no sense.

Everyone knows that when political uncertainty is created, business people are not willing to invest where there is uncertainty. One way to judge that is what has happened in real estate, the business I was involved in. It is a very good indicator of the investment climate and of the uncertainty that exists. If we drive across the bridge over to Hull we will see that real estate prices are lower because of the uncertainty in Quebec. They are substantially lower because of the political uncertainty created by members of the Bloc.

The jobs that are created, whether they are in Canada or other countries, the investment and the foundations that are laid are because of stability. We need political stability to ensure that we create a climate for investment and for business.

This bill is an indication of another infrastructure, another agreement we are developing as a nation. All Canadians will be able to take advantage of this. It will become easier to invest in other countries and easier for other countries to invest in Canada.

If that infrastructure is broken, it creates problems. We will not have the built in systems. Those systems take a long time to develop. As a country we have to recognize that. I think the people in Quebec recognize that they cannot duplicate overnight what took so many years to build. That is going to be a disadvantage. When we have those types of disadvantages we cannot compete. If we cannot compete, the reality is that jobs will be lost. Anybody who says that if Quebec is no longer part of Canada no jobs will be lost does not have a clue about the reality that exists out there. Thousands of jobs are going to be lost because it is taking away the system, the infrastructure, the communications, all the things that have been built up.

There are many examples around the world where countries have been torn apart. What happens is that the prosperity is not there. Racial harmony is a key to prosperity. At this time, the stronger the unit we have, the greater our ability is to negotiate and fulfil agreements, to have financial strength and to have a critical mass where we can talk to other countries because of our fiscal strength. We can talk to other countries because of our technologies and they will want to talk to us about the economy, trade and making exchanges.

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before the House to speak on Bill C-105, an act to implement tax conventions between Canada and Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, and a protocol with Hungary.

Canada has such agreements with more than 55 countries. This type of agreement is very normal in today's business environment because the global economy is becoming smaller. The barriers for trade are coming down. The fences that were built between countries are no longer in existence. The trend is that there will be more and more trade. There will be more investment among different countries.

When Canadian companies invest in other countries they have to look at the tax implications that exist. Obviously those companies are making a profit there and when they do we have to have certain rules on withholding taxes. The same is true when investments are made here by companies outside of Canada. We have to have rules and regulations to govern how those moneys can be taken out of the country.

Bill C-105 provides the legislative authority for the implementation of the tax agreements which Canada has signed. The tax treaties are designed to alleviate double taxation of income earned in one country by a person resident in another country. Obviously it would not be beneficial for someone to invest in another country only to have to pay the full taxes of that country and then once again pay taxes in their resident country. That would not be an incentive to invest.

This is very good for Canada. We are a trading nation. One out of every five jobs in this country is related to trade. Trade will be increasing.

In the criteria used as to which countries we should and should not have these types of agreements with, three primary factors are to be considered when negotiating a tax treaty with a particular country.

One is how much Canadian investment is planned for that country. Obviously if we have a much larger amount of capital and investment going into another country, there is a greater urgency. If we have very little, then it is not that apparent to have a tax treaty. The second requirement is Canada's desire to encourage economic reforms. If we want to encourage economic reforms, that is an additional reason to ensure there is a tax treaty. Another requirement is a country's interest in expanding its trade and economic relations with Canada.

We are building new relationships all the time with other countries. For example, there are companies investing in the tourism business and mining in Cuba. To ensure that those investments are encouraged and that we have an understanding with Cuba, we need to look at tax treatments, to ensure there is a fair tax treatment for both countries, for the other country and for Canada.

There is also the capital gains situation. There has to be a way to ensure that when a foreign company or an individual in another country comes to Canada that the tax is paid on their profits here but that they are also treated so that there is equity in the tax being paid. In other words, a company paying taxes back home does not have to pay twice. This is an advantage for both countries.

Bill C-105 is neither earth shattering nor housekeeping legislation. Rather, it is workaday legislation which addresses the dual issue of fair taxation and good international relations.

In this era of governments reappraising their roles, particularly their economic roles in an increasingly interdependent open global economy, reciprocal tax treaties make good common sense. They certainly do not hinder economic competition, which for Canada is an important fact of life. Canada is above all a trading nation. We must keep expanding our trading boundaries and our relationships with other countries.

A few items in the bill apply to all four treaties. First, while tax treaties vary from one country to another, because there are special circumstances, each treaty must be negotiated individually. These proposed conventions are similar to other treaties already concluded by Canada. They are patterned on the model of the double

taxation convention prepared by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Second, each treaty has been negotiated individually and has taken into account the relevant policies in each country.

Third, Bill C-105 provides an equitable solution to the double taxation problems which exist between Canada and these countries. Double taxation occurs when international transactions result in the same income being taxable in the hands of the same person by more than one nation.

In addition, the protocol brings the convention with Hungary in line with the current Canadian tax policy, particularly with regard to the rates of withholding taxes.

Here are some of the technical aspects of Bill C-105 which apply to the treaties with Estonia, Latvia, and Trinidad and Tobago.

There will be a withholding tax rate of 5 per cent on dividends paid to parent companies and on branch profits, 10 per cent on interest and royalties, and management fees in the case of Trinidad and Tobago. A 15 per cent rate of withholding tax will apply on other dividends. The conventions also provide for a number of exemptions in the case of interest. For Estonia and Latvia, a zero rate will apply to interest paid to the governments, the central banks, the Export Development Corporation, and from sales made on credit. I could go on with more of the technical details of this bill, but I would like to talk about taxation in general.

Because there is more and more trade happening around the world, and for very good reason, we as a country want to ensure that our energies are put into doing the type of economic activities in which we have a trade advantage, where we are more competitive and have the resources, the skills and the technology which will enable us to be more competitive than other countries. We would be able to produce that product at a lower price than other countries that may not have the same advantages. As we see more and more trade developing around the world, some of the costs will decrease.

One of the most important things is taxation in general. As Canadians we have to ensure that we do not burden our companies and our business people with high taxes which would make it more difficult for them to compete in the international community.

Canadians are overtaxed and our tax system is too complicated. We have to work on both of those areas to ensure that we simplify our tax system and that we reduce the tax burden. If we do not do that, we will find it more and more difficult to compete around the world. If our neighbours or our trading partners have a much lower tax rate, obviously our companies and our business people will not have the same advantages.

As trade develops and the barriers come down, as we saw with the world trade agreement, we will need to focus more on taxation, on our rate of taxes and on the complexity of our taxation system. We will also need to ensure that our duties and excise taxes are also very competitive and consistent so that we can compete efficiently with the rest of the world.

Our finance minister will ensure that some of those areas get attention so that we can continue to be a strong trading nation. In doing that, we will continue to create employment and opportunities for all Canadians.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the bill and maybe share with my colleagues some of my own experiences in this area.

I can tell the House that Bill C-64 is very progressive because it is the way corporations and large businesses are going. As a member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro, we adopted a theme and a vision for the corporation that the workforce of the corporation should reflect the community it serves.

The bankers have said it is the right way to go. Let me read to the House what the Canadian bankers have stated on employment equity: "It has stimulated fundamental reviews and enhancement in the bank's human resource policies and practices, which have benefited everyone. It has helped us lay the foundation for managing an increasingly diverse workforce, something every employer of choice in the 1990s wants to do well."

Whether it is West Coast Energy, the banks, or any other corporation, they have recognized that the future workforce is going to be diverse. They have to plan for that diverse workforce. They have to ensure that the future workforce has the skills. Employment equity takes the barriers down. It takes away those barriers that do exist. And they do exist.

I remember when I was about 18 years old I used to work in a sawmill at Crown Zellerbach. I noticed that out of a very large workforce of 2,000 to 2,500 it did not reflect what every other sawmill reflected. It came to my attention that the personnel manager at that time was discriminating. He was discriminating against hiring visible minorities.

I had a job there. I got a job and I could have said I have my job, I do not have to worry about this. But it did not reflect the community. People who would apply there from visible minority groups and who had the qualifications would not get hired.

I remember I was 18 years old and I made an appointment with the vice-president of the corporation. I went there and said he had a personnel manager who discriminates against certain groups and is not hiring them. Of course they were very defensive and said that it was not true, but in fact it was true. It was true.

Even though the vice-president of the corporation at that time did not admit that, the personnel manager was let go. Lo and behold, over the next two or three years we saw quite a different hiring procedure, quite a different way in which people were hired.

There are barriers all the time. There are barriers against the disabled. I know that. My own father unfortunately lost his vision around 22 or 23 years ago, when he was a young man of 40. When that happens to someone who is close to you, you realize the barriers that exist to them, the barriers of their daily life, never

mind the barriers of trying to get employment, trying to make sure that you are fulfilling your daily life, the things we take for granted.

This employment equity bill recognizes that barriers exist against certain groups. We want to have a plan to reduce those barriers, just as we do in this House. We want to ensure for example that more women are represented in the House. Is it wrong to plan to do things in a better way to improve their representation in the House? Is that wrong? That is right.

There are ways we can do things to take away those barriers, to reduce those barriers. That is what the employment equity bill is all about. It recognizes that barriers exist and that we want both in the public sector and in the private sector to lay out a plan. Maybe it is their hiring procedure. They have to look at how they hire.

For example, the aboriginal community has been left out, and we have to work hard to include them. Look at the social problems in the aboriginal community. I have gone through the streets of Vancouver with a policeman and walked through some of the most difficult areas there. We know that we have neglected our job, that we have not done it, because we see so many of them with drug and alcohol problems, with tremendous social problems. They have been left out. They have not been able to participate in the benefits and in the economy.

First we must recognize that those barriers exist. All of this is a plan to see how we can tear down those barriers, reduce those barriers by saying we are not doing things the right way. Maybe we are not hiring in the right way. Maybe we are not planning, maybe we are not training. All of these things are very important.

It is also beneficial and profitable for the corporation. As someone who was an employer, I know how important it is to make sure you have a diverse workforce, because in the global economy that diverse workforce will be a great advantage to you. It will provide new sources of energy, different ways of looking at things, and it will open doors when we trade in the international community and in the global economy. We have to recognize that as an asset. We have to recognize that our diverse population is a tremendous asset. We have to recognize that in all our corporations and companies the diverse population should be reflected in those institutions and in our private sector corporations.

This is an excellent bill. When the members of the Reform really have a good look at this bill they will support it. It will make sure we do things better, that we include people, that we make sure we have a good reflection of what this country is all about in all our institutions, in our private corporations as well as our public corporations.

[Regulations Act, October 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, when I

was asked to speak on Bill C-84 I was quite interested and enthusiastic, just as the member for Fraser Valley West was.

This bill affects small and medium-sized businesses. It is an important bill. As a business person, I have experienced the regulations at all levels of government that do not make sense today.

Bill C-84 replaces the Statutory Instruments Act, which is almost 25 years old. We have not had a serious look at it in 25 years. That is a long time. It was probably outdated 10 years ago. It is something we should have looked at a long time ago. Unfortunately, in government and in politics legislation that should be reviewed frequently is often not because there is no political pressure to review it. I hope we will look at opportunities to review legislation more often and add some sort of sunset clause so that we can modernize regulations on a regular basis.

I was disappointed to hear that the opposition is not going to support the bill. They should actually be congratulating the Minister of Justice for putting the bill before a parliamentary committee before second reading, where the principles of the bill can be examined. This is something members of the third party have often asked for. They want more participation. They want greater opportunities for members of Parliament to be involved in discussions of the bills. This is a great opportunity. Since members across the way asked for it, I thought they would be very enthusiastic and would congratulate the minister for giving that opportunity. Instead, the member for Fraser Valley West was very articulate in talking about the fact that he was not in favour of the bill.

This bill is 25 years old. It is complex, cumbersome, and a real burden to Canadians. The minister is saying we want to simplify and modernize it. We want to make sure that it makes sense for today. What do we hear from the opposition members? They cannot support it; they are not in favour of it. Are they not in favour of simplifying the bill? Are they not in favour of modernizing the bill? Are they not in favour of making sure that committees can do their work and look at this bill?

We often hear in this House about how we have to simplify regulations. We often hear how a lot of the legislation does not make sense for today and that we need to have common sense. Here the minister is providing that opportunity and the opposition members are saying they do not agree with it.

I, and I presume many other members, have been confronted with a regulation that often makes no sense for today. We then go to some of the bureaucrats and tell them this does not make sense in today's business climate, in today's environment, and in today's technology. Often some of the bureaucrats agree with us but tell us their hands are tied because the regulation is very old and has not been reviewed and therefore they have to comply with the regulation.

This is a very good opportunity for all members of Parliament to participate in the changes that are required to have an environment that is efficient. I know the members from the third party often talk about creating greater efficiencies and an environment for businesses so they can have a cost saving.

In terms of the environment, I toured a company in my own riding, Pacific Meadows, that is involved in the recycling of metal. They inform me that there are certain regulations that impede their opportunity to recycle.

Often when government forms regulations it throws this huge net out there and catches, just as it does in the fishing industry, something it does not intend to catch. It becomes an impediment for small and medium-sized companies to do their business. The net was cast out to cover all sorts of things but not intended to catch some businesses. That is why we need the opportunity, on a regular basis, to review the regulatory process and regulations to ensure that it makes sense for today's environment in terms of international trade, changes in the environment, and changes in the health care area. All those areas have to be taken into consideration. The present act does not take those things into consideration.

This bill will go a long way to ensuring that we have a simplified, modernized bill. I do not know how anybody can be against simplifying something. We have come to a new age of communications and electronics. One of the things this bill proposes is that we have an electronic registry where forms will be filled out electronically so that we can become more efficient and more cost effective. I believe that will go a long way.

I hope the members across the way will realize that small and medium-sized businesses all over this country will be disappointed with the stand they have taken to vote against modernizing a regulatory process when business people all over this country know we have to improve the way our regulatory process works. I think Canadians across this country will applaud the government and the Minister of Justice for bringing this legislation forward to modernize and simplify our regulations.

[Oceans Act, September 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I would like to commend him on some interesting ideas he has put forward. I took notes on many of his concerns.

He spent some time on ensuring that enforcement and law and order is very important. The Reform Party often puts forward that if there are people illegally fishing or poaching we should take action. He would know that the Reform member for Delta was charged with illegally fishing and that whenever anyone does not abide by the law they will be charged as the member was under the DFO act.

The member also talked about enforcement. He knows that one of the things we have accomplished this year is we were able to get an increase in the budget for enforcement. This is not an easy thing to do these days when there are tremendous budget cuts. As the Reform Party often brings forward we should be cutting the deficit and cutting our costs but this is one area where people such as the hon. member and others have told us that we need more enforcement. Therefore more enforcement has been added on the west coast. It is the one area where there has been a budget increase.

The hon. member talked about the sports fishery. He knows that the sports fishery is very important from a tourism point of view in developing that whole industry. Would he and his party designate the chinook and coho as an exclusive sports fishery? I am interested to know his view on that topic and what his position would be.

I also would like to hear his view on our new aquaculture strategy. I wonder whether he feels that is the right direction and whether he agrees with our new aquaculture strategy which was just brought in by the minister. We think aquaculture is very important. I would appreciate it if the hon. member could respond to those questions.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 27th, 1995]

Do not get too angry.

[Bill C-45, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Today many Canadians who have been victimized by crime appeared on Parliament Hill to voice their feelings and frustrations.

Bill C-45 is proof that the Liberal government has not forgotten them. The bill's intention is to make our streets and homes safer.

In our continuing efforts to strengthen penalties faced by offenders, the government has passed Bill C-37, Bill C-41 and has introduced Bill C-45.

While a strong justice system is vital in holding offenders accountable for their actions, tougher sentences and penalties are only half the solution. Prevention is the other half.

Each year Canadians spend approximately $9 billion on policing, private security, courts, corrections and insurance.

Studies such as the one conducted by High/Scope Perry reveal that high quality active learning-

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about not consulting. In fact, if we look at every one of our policies whether it is human resources or the gun control bill, there has been more consultation done by this government than by any other government. There has been more consultation done by this government on this issue itself.

First, the government consulted the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. Should we ignore its advice? Should we say it does not know what it is talking about? Then the members across would say we are not listening to these advisory boards. They are the ones who started it.

The minister continued with a vision for oceans management. In November 1994, 600 people and 200 responses were received. Consultation was done. In April 1995 the coastal provinces, the Northwest Territories and Ottawa were consulted. There were meetings in November and December 1994. The list goes on. The people consulted were academics, scientists and others in the fishery, people in the oceans industry, environmentalists, First Nations people and people involved in community development. How much more consultation do Reformers want?

We have heard one of the Reform members say many times that we were consulting too much. He has told the Minister of Justice to stop consulting and get to it. Members of the Reform Party should make up their minds.

One thing is for sure: this government takes its responsibilities seriously. We do the consulting and then we make the decisions. The problem is that Reform members do not always like the decisions and then they complain and say we did not consult. There has been ample consultation on this bill. The Reform Party member who is a member of the standing committee will have an opportunity to work further and put forward recommendations as they come before the committee before this bill goes to third reading.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I listened very closely.

His speech is very similar to the speech made by the member for Skeena. I do not want to repeat some of the remarks I have already made. I once again remind him he should read the budget. He has put forward concerns about the licensing fees which were budget items in February 1995. For every $5 in cuts there is only $1 in cost recovery. This is part of the cost recovery. The hon. member should also keep in mind there was public consultation right across the province.

More to the point, hon. members often mention special interest groups. When special interest groups represent the ideology of these people they work hand in hand. They are holding hands with special interest groups. Look at the gun lobby. They are joining hands with the gun lobby so they should not tell us about special interest groups. When they represent their view, they are happy to work with them.

The licence fee was $30. For those who use the resource, it does not matter if they have a landing value $12,000 or a landing value of $1 million. The fee was an insignificant amount of $30. Now those people who take the most from the resource will pay a higher amount. It is a public resource. They have a beneficial access to that resource that not everybody has only because they have to pay that licensing fee. Should we charge the same amount?

Should we not charge those people who take more out of the resource? The figure of 400 per cent was used. Some fisherpersons make $1 million in a six to eight-week fishing season. Their fee is only going to be 1.6 per cent of their landed value. Do you think that is a huge burden on those people? Obviously, this amount is going to be rated depending on how much the landing value is. If there is a higher landing value then more will be paid. I do not think 1.6 per cent is very much. I am wondering if the member thinks that is too high.