Ronald J. Duhamel

[Petitions, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present this petition.

This petition is being presented on behalf of citizens who represent the views of many thousands of Canadians throughout the nation.

The petitioners request that Parliament eliminate or reduce the right of landing fee for immigrants. They also ask that Parliament relate the payment of the landing fee to the wealth of the applicant and that it be paid only upon acceptance of the visa.

I am pleased to give my support to this request.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

What will the Minister of Canadian Heritage do to counteract budget cuts such as those made at Radio-Canada and more specifically those affecting the news program Ce soir . Could she expand on that?

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could continue this exchange because the more questions my colleague asks, the more he and his party are falling at this point in time.

I cannot believe my colleague would not recognize that we had an agreement signed much before April 1. He forgets that. He conveniently forgets it I suspect, because he is quite a bright fellow actually.

With respect to the way he suggests we have spent the money, front end loaded, he uses expressions. I wonder if he could define them for us. It would be very helpful to Canadians because most of them do not know what he is talking about.

He knows that that money was needed. He knows that that money was spent responsibly. He knows that we had an agreement well before April 1. He knows that the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have done a tremendous job on an extremely complex issue.

If he will recant, I hope he will give an address and do nothing but point out some of the positives of this piece of legislation. At the same time he should indicate what he might do in order to prove it as opposed to making grossly exaggerated, insensitive and wildly inaccurate statements.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I find it shocking that my colleague would suggest the Minister of Finance is breaking rules and regulations that have been established. I do not believe that. Canadians do not believe that. The Minister of Finance is one of the finest Ministers of Finance we have ever had. He is one of the people whom I admire the most because he does toe the line. He is aware of the rules and regulations. He follows them.

For my colleague to suggest that because a bill comes into effect on a certain day and there are no expenditures before shows a lack of understanding of the political process, of the implementation process. I thought he was a business person, I would even add of business principles. That is shocking, absolutely, totally, completely shocking.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I thank my colleague for making the intervention to the Chair and subsequently to me because it gives me an opportunity to respond to the questions that were raised.

For that member or any member, particularly a member of the Reform Party to suggest that we are number one on any number of measures because we have borrowed is virtually scandalous. We are number one because we are Canada. We are number one because we are Canadians. We are number one because our aboriginal peoples from the beginning of this country have contributed to its greatness, because the English and the French and Canadians from virtually every single country in the world have come to contribute their talents, their energy and their efforts to make this country the country that it is.

He suggested that we have become number one because of previous governments with which he is very sympathetic and if my memory serves me correctly, he wanted to run for a particular government that had the same label as the one that preceded this one which doubled the debt. To suggest for one moment that we are number one because we borrowed is scandalous. I am surprised and disappointed because I have a lot of respect for that member. Frankly as I see some of the more moderate members making some of those grossly exaggerated, insensitive inaccurate comments, I know where they are going: down, down, down.

With respect to the imperfect bill, there are a number of imperfections. There are difficulties with respect to advertising. There are difficulties. For example, a particular item might cost $9.99 and with the tax it would be beyond that. People have in their minds that they are buying a $9.99 item. There are many others. My colleague probably read-I hope he did-the various testimonies from the literally hundreds of groups that drew various points to our attention and that wanted them corrected. These are in the process of being corrected.

There is virtually no piece of legislation that does not improve after men and women of sound mind and good intentions have looked at it in a co-operative way in order to make it better for the people they represent and serve. Is that astonishing? It would be extremely astonishing if legislation of that magnitude and impact did not undergo refinement. In fact it would never happen. My

colleague knows that and he knows it full well. It is an attempt to try to embarrass the government, but it is not going to work.

We are talking about all of these dollars that have supposedly been spent. Does my colleague suggest they have been spent for naught? Does my colleague suggest that we spent that to have fun? Does my colleague suggest that we spent that irresponsibly? Where is the proof? Of course not. Changing any system is expensive and he knows that. He knows that changing any system is expensive but he will not acknowledge it. I find that most unfortunate, most most unfortunate. It is to help with the transition and he knows it.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, initially there had been an accord that I would be sharing my time, but that has now been changed and I will not be doing so.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House today in support of this bill, which makes amendments to the GST and harmonizes the HST in the Atlantic provinces. I am pleased to do so because I want to try to bring forward some of the more positive features while recognizing that there are difficulties. A model has been put forward that is applicable to other provinces, with the same advantages to other provinces.

No special deal has been set up, as some colleagues would pretend, in order to try to make politics. It is rather interesting when one talks about the Reform Party these days. There are a lot of articles about how much difficulty it is having. It is not unusual to notice why. We have just heard from one of their more moderate members who spent much of his time talking about going to jail for putting a sticker at the wrong place on a chocolate bar. Let us get serious. Would that really happen?

He talked about the arrogance of the Prime Minister. What nonsense. We have one of the most gentle, kind, down to earth prime ministers we have ever had. There is no arrogance. That is the kind of sentiment that Reform wants to put out in order to gain political points.

He talked about Bombardier, which is one of the large, prosperous and significant companies in Canada, and within a few seconds was talking about weird, wacky interest groups and somehow put them together. If you are an interest group, does that make you weird and wacky? No, I think not. I know of a lot of interest groups whose members are extremely well educated and knowledgeable who have specific and important objectives. Just because they

come to Parliament and to governments to share information and seek assistance does not mean that it is inappropriate, but there goes the Reform philosophy. It puts Bombardier and weird and wacky interest groups all together. That comes from one of their more moderate members.

Is anybody surprised that Reform is having difficulty trying to convince Canadians that it is a serious political party? It does not surprise me.

I recognize that the scrap versus replace debate is ongoing. I understand the position of both groups. I made it my job to do so. However, I think any fair-minded person would recognize, if they took the time to look at it, that this legislation is a big step toward the accomplishment of another of the government's red book promises, as imperfect as it may be.

I want to quote what was in the red book as opposed to what the opposition parties that are trying to make political hay are saying. They recognize that taxes are not popular. They recognize that when a tax is changed, that is the time to try to embarrass the government. There is no serious criticism in trying to make what is happening better, simpler, easier, more acceptable to businesses and consumers. There is none of that. There is simply an attempt to exaggerate items, but they exaggerate to the point where no one really believes them.

I will return to the quote.

A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fair to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.

That is what we said. I realize that in the course of the debate, there are a number of things people may have said. And unfortunately, they may have caused some people to jump to conclusions. That is really too bad.

Suppose we look at what we said officially.

The broad elements of the final agreement with the Atlantic provinces included-it is important to understand that because therein lies a model which could be applicable to other provinces-a substantial reduction from current combined rates down to 15 per cent in the three participating provinces; a single administration for both federal and provincial sales taxes; tax inclusive pricing so consumers will know in advance of their purchase the exact price they will pay. For transparency purposes, the tax or rate of tax will be shown separately on the sales slip.

A national approach to interprovincial sales will ensure a level playing field for businesses in the participating provinces. Federal rebates and the GST low income tax receipt will continue to apply under the harmonization agreement.

A key element of the new system is a single set of rules and forms, as well as a single administration. Tax relief for charities and public sector bodies will continue. Participating provinces will provide rebates for the provincial component of the HST to charities and qualifying non-profit organizations.

In each province, municipalities, hospitals, schools, public colleges and universities will receive a partial rebate of their tax.

I believe that businesses in participating provinces will become more competitive at home and abroad. Some have indicated exactly that, recognizing that some people have disagreed with them.

Furthermore, businesses will collect and remit the HST on sales in the participating provinces. This approach ensures that sales tax is collected and remitted in a more effective and efficient manner. Surely we have a commitment to be more effective and efficient. Perhaps the Reform Party does not want that.

Simply put, the harmonized sales tax means a simpler tax system for both consumers and businesses which is more efficient to govern.

I would like to address an issue about which I am pleased with the direction taken. I have always supported and continue to support the removal of the GST from all reading materials. It is a position which I took a long time ago and I have not wavered from it.

I was extremely pleased with the announcement made by the Minister of Finance on October 23, 1996. At that time the minister announced the government's intention to implement a 100 per cent GST rebate on all books purchased by public libraries, schools, universities, public colleges, municipalities, qualifying charities and non-profit organizations across Canada, effective immediately. I have not heard the opposition talk a lot about that.

This change includes all classroom books distributed freely to students by educational authorities. As a result, all books purchased by these bodies will not be subject to the federal sales tax anywhere in Canada.

This rebate affirms the federal government's commitment to support literacy. However, I must confess that I consider the measure to be a partial sucess as opposed to a total success. This special rebate recognizes the important role played by public

libraries, educational institutions and other community organizations in helping people learn how to read and improve their reading skills, something which has become increasingly critically important in today's society.

Finally, I have received numerous representations from physicians in my riding and from across Canada. The physicians have made what I consider to be an effective case concerning the application of the GST to their practices. Although physicians are treated for income tax purposes as small businesses, they are unable to claim a GST refund on the medical supplies used in the delivery of health care.

I am told that the recent agreement between the federal government and the Atlantic provinces will make matters even worse than they were. I believe that doctors deserve to be treated the same way as any other self-employed Canadian or small business.

As I said at the finance committee meetings which reviewed Bill C-70, I have concerns with respect to the GST and physicians. Officials acknowledged that such difficulties need to be addressed. It continues to be my hope that an equitable solution can be found. Surely there is a solution that is acceptable to both physicians and government. I am seeking a solution that is acceptable to the government and to the doctors. I will continue to play a role to that end if I am requested to do so.

Finally, I would like to sum up the benefits of harmonizing the GST. This is not to say there are no obstacles to overcome, no problems. Obviously, the system is changing, and when we change something, we know there will be problems. We cannot anticipate everything, but the benefits are there, and I will mention a few. It is one of the most effective measures for supporting job creation and economic growth in that region.

Some people say we should remove the GST altogether. We would love to be able to do that, and if it were at all possible, that is what we would do. However, we cannot forego the revenue. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said many times it would be impossible to abolish, to shelve this tax, without replacing it with a tax increase to keep revenues at the same level.

I also wanted to talk about tax cuts, something not often mentioned by my opposition colleagues. For consumers in the three provinces where the tax is being harmonized, this new system will mean a tax cut and eliminating the tax on the tax. That was not mentioned.

The new tax will be better for consumers, business and governments-that is what harmonization is all about-and it will be easier for the consumer, because tax will be included in the sales price. What consumers see on the price tag is what they will pay at the cash, but retailers will indicate the tax clearly on the sales slip. Those are the advantages.

Businesses in harmonizing provinces will have only one sales tax administration to deal with and not two; a single group of auditors and not two.

It is a better system for the economy, because the harmonized tax will be more effective from an economic standpoint. It is a national strategy for interprovincial sales to ensure the rules of the game are fair for businesses in participating provinces. Furthermore, federal refunds and the GST credit for low income earners will continue to apply under the harmonization agreement.

I believe that the government is taking a big step forward with this bill, as imperfect as it is. It is a complex bill. It was complex before, it is complex still today and it will continue to be. Clearly there will continue to be challenges and difficulties to surmount. Surely if we are what we pretend to be in this House, we ought to be identifying not only the problems, not only the hurdles, not only the challenges, not only the insensitivities if they exist, but also the solutions to correct it. I have not heard that.

I have heard gross exaggerations that they will remove the tax and they will do this and they will do that and then they will do this and that and this and that, knowing full well there will never be an opportunity for them to do it. It is very easy to promise everything when you know you are not going to have to do it. But where is your responsible behaviour when you look at a piece of legislation and you are unable to look at not only the difficulties but the merits; when you are able to identify not only the problems but to suggest corrective measures as opposed to empty exaggerated rhetoric that attempts to aid a drowning party and somehow lift it up? That is what is happening here.

I personally look forward to the signing of agreements of this nature across the provinces. I am hopeful my colleagues will use their resources, their knowledge, their insights in order to make this legislation even better than it is. If they were to do that, they would be helping consumers across Canada. If they were to do that, they would be helping business men and women across Canada. If they were to do that, they would be helping our country, which is already number one on a number of measures, become even better, stronger, more united, more oriented toward helping each other as opposed to being pecky and picky and attempting to destroy the very fabric that holds us together.

[Voyageur Festival, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite all my colleagues to the attend the Voyageur Festival this week in St. Boniface.

This festival, which takes pride in being known as the largest winterfest in western Canada, celebrates the history, traditions and culture of the French and Metis people.

This is a time when Manitobans, other Canadians and people from all over the world come and visit Voyageur Park, Fort Gibraltar and the winter promenades to honour the contribution of the founding nations of Manitoba.

For two weeks, St. Boniface will host Franco-Manitoban, Quebec, Acadian and Cajun performers who will act, sing and dance, all in French.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, once again, I invite you to join us in celebrating the tenacity of the Metis and French speaking communities of western Canada. Have a great time.

[Finance, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important pre-budget debate.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance I was very closely involved in the prebudget consultations. I am proud to be a member of the government which opened up the budgetary process to Canadians in an unprecedented fashion. The Minister of Finance is to be commended for having undertaken this innovative initiative which has been done since 1993. It was exceptionally well done again this year.

The finance committee was split into two groups. The western wing which covered the western provinces was headed by the able parliamentarian from Essex-Windsor, the vice chair of the committee. The eastern wing was headed by the chair of the committee, the member for Willowdale.

We heard from over 300 associations and individuals and received numerous representations from people from all walks of life. Therein lies the strength. We heard from people not only from every geographical region but virtually from every single segment of society. They told us what they thought ought to be in the next budget.

Hearings were held in Ottawa and across the country. By holding hearings locally we were able to make the consultative process that much more accessible. In addition, the finance committee agreed to split in two, as I indicated. This was extremely useful because we were able to spend a full week on the road to hear Canadians, quite apart from the many meetings that we had here in Ottawa.

One consistent theme to the testimony was the support of Canadians for the government to finish the job that had been started. Canadians know we must continue to meet and surpass our deficit targets then move forward to begin to pay down the debt.

The committee is in favour of adopting the objective proposed by the Minister of Finance to bring the deficit back to $9 billion, or 1 per cent of GDP by 1998-99.

To date as we all know, the government has successfully met and exceeded its deficit targets.

We recognize that these have been difficult times for all Canadians. However it is imperative that we work toward a more affordable and efficient government and an era of sustainable government programs. It is critical that our deficit targets be met so that we can start working on the debt.

During the consultations Canadians gave us guidance, a framework from which to work and to build for the future. Canadians made their priorities clear. They want us to begin addressing problems that have been neglected in the past in order to build on our future.

I will focus my discussion on a number of areas of priority that were mentioned by Canadians. I would suggest that the opposition parties would do well to listen to what is being said because they might glean some valuable insights that could help them make some constructive suggestions to the government as opposed to continually whining, berating and denigrating the excellent work of the Minister of Finance and the government in this area.

Priority areas of concern are those issues which came up time and time again during the consultative process. Those are the areas that we need to build upon for the future. The committee believes that action needs to be taken in future budgets. However, actions taken must be within the context of our ongoing commitment to meeting and surpassing our deficit targets, dealing with the issue of our enormous debt, the restoration of our fiscal health and I reiterate, finishing the job we started.

The committee recommends that Revenue Canada determine the changes to be made to the earned income supplement, to make it easier to adjust to changes in the employment situation of parents, and to provide assistance when needed.

In 1989 the House of Commons unanimously approved a motion seeking to eliminate poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. The committee very strongly believes that assisting children in poverty must be the main priority of government. We need to find a way to speed up the way in which resources get to those that need them.

A good example is the working income supplement. Currently this benefit is based on the previous year's income. As a result it is not responsive to changing circumstances, not as much as they ought to be, and we need to rectify this situation.

The committee congratulates the federal task force on people with disabilities for its excellent work and recommends the inclusion, in the next budget, of measures that will take into account the additional costs incurred by people with disabilities.

I had an opportunity to meet with my hon. colleague the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury concerning the task force report. I must commend him and his colleagues for their excellent thorough report. What I took away from that meeting above all else is that Canadians living with a disability almost always have additional costs. Within federal jurisdiction we should take action in the area of tax policy to deal with this situation. In addition, any actions in the area of tax policy should be in support of the social policy objectives of inclusion, independence and productivity.

The committee recommends a significant increase in the support provided to literacy organizations under the National Literacy Secretariat, which currently stands at $22.3 million per year.

During the consultations we heard from witnesses that the changing economy is demanding ever higher levels of literacy from all working Canadians. Our future will require workers, managers and executives with higher skills that are required today and constant upgrading I might add. Literacy is an essential tool in such a knowledge based economy and more so than ever before. Our challenge is to provide literacy and learning for all because without these tools workers and employers will fall behind their competitors. We believe that this problem can be addressed through partnerships with every sector of society, co-ordinated through the efforts of the National Literacy Secretariat.

Subsequent to the release of the prebudget report, I have received a congratulatory letter concerning literacy from Frontier College which reads in part: "This is great news. This is the knowledge and information age and every Canadian must be able to read and write well in order to be part of it-.The finance committee gave us the assurance that we will have the resources to continue this fight".

There are a number of other such letters from members of other communities who felt that this prebudget report was of first quality and addressed the needs of Canadians. I would be delighted to share those with all of my colleagues.

Tuition fees are increasing everywhere in the country. The committee made three recommendations.

These recommendations dealt with carrying forward tuition fees as deductions against future income, doubling the $500 exemption for scholarship, fellowship and bursary income, and special opportunity grants being provided for students with parental responsibilities. These recommendations recognize that an investment in education is an investment in our future. Research and development was recognized as key to Canada's ability to compete in the global economy.

The committee recommends that priority be given to increasing the funding of granting councils such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Medical Research Council.

The committee recognized the important work and the unique opportunities provided by the Networks of Centres of Excellence program. It recommended the renewal of the program for a third term.

Recommendations were made on the implementation of a second, more modest national infrastructure program. The committee recognized the great success of the first infrastructure program. Support was given for the second program which is well directed and available to traditional infrastructure projects such as waste treatment, water supply, transportation, et cetera, as well as to health care and educational institutions. Support for health care and educational institutions represents a long term contribution to Canada's overall level of productivity and our long term prospects for high level, high knowledge jobs.

We recognize the importance of charities and the voluntary sector. The committee had a number of recommendations concerning endowments, bequests, corporate donations, stretch proposals, withholding taxes, community economic development, program related investment and taxpayer awareness.

To conclude on this issue, the committee believes that its proposals to increase tax incentives for charitable donations will help correct the imbalance resulting from the reduction of direct subsidies, and it recommends that these proposals be implemented.

We recognize the important role played by charities in our communities. We recognize the need to help them find sources of additional resources in a fiscally responsible manner and the role the government can play. I received a letter from an organization called Heritage Canada. It congratulates the committee for its recommendations in the area of charities: "Recommendations in the area of charitable giving are similarly welcome. Greater incentives to encourage more in the way of personal and corporate giving could clearly have a beneficial impact on the heritage field".

At a town hall meeting in my riding I had the opportunity to meet with members of my community, my advisory committee. Their recommendations were not unlike others. Constituents are supportive of our fiscal goals and deficit reduction targets. They want us to invest strategically in the future, in our young people and in certain research that could be value added. They want to make sure that universities and community colleges are not neglected. They want increased R and D funding that will create better jobs and a better quality of life for all Canadians. They urged us not to forget small and medium size business and they wanted to be sure that we considered another modest infrastructure program.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I think this report is a first in the sense that the same report will be tabled by two separate committees. My colleague from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be tabling the same document under a different report number. The report is the result of a joint effort by two subcommittees that each received a mandate from its respective standing committee to carry out a joint review of the Special Import Measures Act.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who took part in the hearings of the sub-committees. I would also like to emphasize the way our assistants and committee staff worked together to ensure that our efforts were successful.

In concluding, I may point out that the report contains a request for a comprehensive response from the government, pursuant to Standing Order 109.

[Tuition Fees, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, changes in the fees at universities in Quebec will penalize young Quebecers who choose to study outside Quebec. The Government of Quebec will reduce the amount of financial assistance it makes available to these young people.

Also, out of province students will pay additional fees for their education in Quebec.

More problems will result from this action taken by the Quebec government. Quebec students will get fewer opportunities to dialogue with people outside the province. Other Canadian students will get fewer opportunities to interact with their counterparts in Quebec.

Certain groups of Canadians, for example francophones outside Quebec, will be limited in their choice of university, and the dialogue with their brothers and sisters in Quebec will be silenced.

Finally, Quebec businesses will lose tax. There will be fewer students from outside Quebec spending money.

Stop. Rethink. Education is for everyone.

Please reconsider.