Jane Stewart

[Supply, March 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I assume there is time to answer after that very short preamble. I would just point out that we on this side know it is 1996 and not 1950 like members opposite.

The member is talking about what people said at their doors. I remind the hon. member that in 1990 it was the Reform Party leader who said while his party was trying to get a new senator and its first member of Parliament elected, that the Reform Party would rip out the GST if it has been imposed against the will of the people. That was in the Reform Party's election campaign.

As I said in my comments this tax was conceived of and implemented poorly. It is now very difficult to administer as a result of the work of the previous government. The last thing I want to do is to inflict another ill-conceived replacement on the Canadian public. We will take the time needed to get this tax right because we are a responsible government. We have listened to what the people of Canada have said.

[Supply, March 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was fascinated by this motion which has been presented for us to debate here in the House by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. It states: "That, in the opinion of this House, the GST should be "killed, scrapped, abolished". Period. End. Full stop. Nothing more.

There is no indication here about how the third party would replace the GST; if it would replace the GST; how it would deal with the $17 billion in net revenues the goods and services tax brings in to the federal government. There is nothing that talks about that in this motion, this current, the fourth or perhaps the fifth iteration of the Reform Party platform on the GST.

I can only conclude that what Reformers must be saying is they do not care about those funds. They are taking the position that we can walk away from $17 billion and they are prepared to face the critics who say that this approach is foolhardy and irresponsible.

I said I was fascinated that Reformers would propose such a motion for debate today. However, I am really not surprised. Here again we have members of the Reform Party using political grandstanding to make some kind of point. I am not sure what it is. I am sure the last laugh is going to be on them. When we look at this, here again they are providing simple answers to very complex problems. Their political naivete is showing through yet again.

Also, the motion is intellectually dishonest. I sat on the finance committee with those members opposite. I listened as they did to Canadians right across the country about their concern for this tax, their hate for this tax.

We heard from large businesses which said: "If you do not harmonize this tax with the 10 provincial sales taxes, we will never have interprovincial trade that is free and open". We listened to small and medium size businesses which said: "If you do not harmonize this tax, the administrative nightmare we face daily is never going to go away". They said to us: "If you do not change this tax and make it more flexible so that we do not have to go through the same process as large companies do when we do not have accounting departments to do that, it is going to kill us".

We listened to individual Canadians who said: "This tax is driving us crazy". Yes, I remember that very individual, the retailer who came to our committee with his bags of tax receipts, showing the number of customers that had walked out of his store and not completed their transactions because they were not prepared to pay the final price. He said to us: "When you change the tax, make sure that the tax is included in the pricing on the floor".

We heard from advocates of social groups, social organizations, poverty organizations who said: "We understand that the government needs the $17 billion. We understand that you want to have a mix of tax regimes: corporate, personal income tax, and yes, a consumption tax. But for goodness sake, make sure that the notion of progressivity, that the rebate continues on".

I would point out at this time, Madam Speaker, that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Willowdale and will look to you for a cue as my time runs out.

Let me continue by saying that as a committee we responded to these concerns. We made recommendations. As my colleague from St. Paul's pointed out, the third party said in its minority report: "We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces. While we support the much needed harmonization of the tax, this will be a very difficult political objective to achieve". We agreed that harmonization was important, that including the tax in the pricing was important, that changing the tax so it was more responsive to individual companies depending on their size was important.

I bring out the red book and quote directly from our platform, the platform we took to Canadians in 1993. It states: "A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small business, minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization". We went beyond that. We presented a complete package to the people of Canada. We told them that we recognized this was a poor tax. It was poorly strategized, poorly conceived, poorly implemented. It is hard to administer.

We recognized, as I read from the red book, the answers. We said that in the first 12 months of our mandate we would talk to Canadians and confirm this with them, which we did as a finance committee. Lo and behold, the answer that came back was reflective of the position we took in our platform.

We know we have to replace the GST. We are committed to replacing it. We know that Canadians across the country support the strategy the finance committee put forward and which the Minister of Finance is working at achieving.

We are taking a responsible position here. We need to work with the provinces in order to make them understand that their constituents are the ones we talked to. The answers the provinces would get from the people in Ontario, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island are the answers we got as we crossed the country.

The answer is to come together, to have a single tax, to respond to the needs of the country, to improve our interprovincial trade, to respond to small and medium size businesses, which we know are the engines to our economic future, and to respond to individual Canadians. They do not want a tax but are prepared to pay taxes to support our social programs and our seniors benefits, those things that make this country unique and which are so important to us.

I admire the Minister of Finance for the work he is doing in his discussions with the provincial finance ministers. I will work as closely with him as I can to ensure that we have success in this regard.

In the Ministry of National Revenue we have come to the very clear conclusion that there is but one taxpayer and we want one tax administration. Therefore, in the budget and in the speech from the throne we have identified the importance of moving toward a single Canada revenue commission. We will consolidate the work of the department even more so than we have.

I would like to recognize the work of those members of my department who have consolidated very disparate branches of endeavour and brought them under one administration. We will continue to work with other federal departments such as agriculture, immigration and transportation to consolidate our work, reduce duplication, save money and reduce overlap.

We will then, with this agency, go forward and ask the provinces to work with us and consolidate the administrations that are dotting our country in each province and territory.

I am hopeful as we proceed along that agenda that we can clear the path and assist the Minister of Finance and draw to the attention of the finance ministers in all of the provinces how important the harmonization of this tax is, how important including the tax in the pricing is and how important it is to ensure that the tax regimes we have in effect in Canada are responsive to Canadians and to Canadian business.

That is the commitment we made as a Liberal Party. That is the commitment we continue to maintain and work toward as a Liberal government. I would ask members of the third party to remember the comments they made in their minority report, the support they gave to this position. I ask them to begin to work with us instead of continuing with this political grandstanding and flip-flopping to position themselves in whatever they view to be in the best view of the Canadian public at a certain point in time.

[Revenue Canada, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada has come to the realization that not every single tax filer needs every piece of documentation and supporting tax tables that can possibly be provided.

In fact, it was discovered that Canadians were using the simple arithmetic formula to check the tax tables. The tax tables were stripped from hundreds of thousands of packages sent out and in so doing have saved the taxpayer countless thousands of dollars and saved trees.

I point out that I did the tax calculation. If I can do it, pretty much everybody can.

[Child Care, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of last week's budget there have been changes to the child care expense deduction.

First, the age of eligibility for children has been increased from 14 to 16, recognizing that there are parents who do work night shifts and need to have support in the home for their children. Therefore those costs should be deductible.

Second, we know there are single parents who are enrolled in full time education and who have not been able to use the deduction in the past. We have changed this process so that they will now be included. These reflect the changes in Canadian society. I believe the changes will be appreciated by Canadians.

[Terrorism, March 14th, 1996]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that members of my department have been in touch with members of the solicitor general's department and members of the foreign affairs department.

We take this extremely seriously. We want to find the right strategies to ensure that the charitable organizations we fund are not in any way connected to terrorist organizations.

[Collection Of Unpaid Taxes, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read our budget or listened to the Minister of Finance he would know that in a very concrete way we have addressed this issue. Fifty million dollars will be coming into the Department of National Revenue to help us audit in a more extensive way those sectors of the economy at risk to the underground economy.

[Collection Of Unpaid Taxes, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue has a very good record when it comes to collecting receivables.

We as a department have worked extremely hard, as I mentioned yesterday, on the underground economy. We are focusing on Canadians who are taxpayers. We need to have those moneys in our coffers.

We have a good record and we will continue with that record.

[Disability Tax Credit, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the definition of persons with disabilities has been expanded for the sake of this credit. We know there are those who have been audited. We have asked every tax centre across the country to look at individual cases and to treat them with fairness and understanding should difficulties of hardship arise in individual cases.

We are not without compassion but we have to ensure that the tax base is fair and is full of integrity.

[Disability Tax Credit, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the very good work that the advocates on behalf of disabled Canadians did in responding to the prebudget work of the finance committee. Because of this work, the Minister of Finance included in this year's budget a paragraph that stated the government would look at the support systems and programs to ensure they responded to the modern needs of disabled Canadians.

Specifically in response to the disability tax credit, not only has this member drawn it to my attention but many of my caucus members have as well. I have asked my department to do four specific things. First, to ensure that Canadians have the understanding and education they need to understand this credit. Second, to ensure that we review it in a very effective way.

[The Underground Economy, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me first recognize that the vast majority of Canadians are honest taxpaying citizens.

There are those who do engage in the underground economy. I thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga-South for his attention and work on this program. He worked directly with my predecessor to develop a seven-point plan to combat the underground economy.

I am pleased to announce that as a result of that program we have assessed over $1 billion in federal taxes. More important, of the 500,000 non-tax filers identified in that program, fully 80 per cent appreciate the program and are now voluntarily complying with tax regulations.

The underground economy continues to exist. I will work with my colleague to address it. We are thankful to the Minister of Finance in his budget of last week for addressing to us $50 million to focus on particular sectors in the economy that are particularly at risk to the underground economy.