Pierre Brien

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

Indeed, there are some-and they deserve full marks-who listen closely.

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our friends would do well to listen. When the subject is taxation, we have the impression that they are no longer listening, that they are afraid-

[Income Tax Act, February 9th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, before I start my speech, I would like to comment on what was said by the hon. member for the Reform Party about simplification. Of course there is a case for simplifying the entire tax system, and I am referring to income tax returns as well as tax shelters, but I do not think we can agree on everything, and there are other options that should be considered very carefully.

Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, has an aspect that may be somewhat odd, I suppose, for members on the other side of the House. In fact, we are legislating measures that arise from the last budget. I am not sure, and I did not go through Hansard to see what the reaction was to these measures when they were announced, although it might be interesting to do that, but now, they have no choice, and neither do we. These measures must be enacted. This legislation will implement measures which in fact businesses were able to take advantage of all last year. Legally, these measures had not been adopted, but they will be in the weeks to come, which will more or less finalize what was announced in the last budget. These are very technical aspects.

However, there are also some principles involved, and we could do a repeat of last year's budget debate, but we cannot really affect the outcome. The fiscal year will end in a few months, and by that time we will have a new budget, in a matter of weeks even, and there are rumours it might be in less than two weeks. At that time we may have something more interesting to discuss.

Nevertheless, there are a number of comments we would like to make about the last budget and the measures arising from that budget, in a final attempt to influence what will be in the next budget, and especially in next year's budget, because the Minister of Finance is already saying they will not have time to put everything they want in this year's budget and that it will have to wait until next year.

Whether that is the real reason, who knows? I think they are hoping for a strong economic recovery and that they are overestimating the positive impact of economic growth on the deficit, despite all the nice speeches by the Minister of Finance and despite his good intentions. He said that he would not repeat the mistake of the past, the mistake of the Conservative government in overestimating evenues. We can see from last year's budget that spending was grossly underestimated, and the Liberals say they will not do that. As far as revenues are concerned, I can tell you that we will be watching closely.

The dozen or so measures contained in this Bill were announced in the December economic statement and in the budget last May. The rest is made up of changes to the wording of the law. All that is very complex, given the number of areas covered by the Income Tax Act, and with time we even get conflicting clauses, but I will come back to that.

These measures were meant, to a great extent, to stimulate small and medium sized businesses. That was really the target sector. There was also something for research and development, and finally measures concerning exploration for natural resources.

That budget had extended for another year the use of registered retirement saving plans for home buying. This is a good measure which we hope to find again in this year's budget for application next year.

I heard some members say that representations were made by some of their constituents showing that this particular measure had a positive impact. Obviously this is a kind of measure which is easy to evaluate, and that is interesting.

I will conclude, not on the basis on my speech but on that of the proposed measures, that the government will have to do better in the future.

Last year's budget was very disappointing. It seemed as though the government wanted to preserve maximum flexibility so that the next Conservative Party Leader would have the leeway to adapt it at will. Maybe that was not a good idea. I do not believe that, in these difficult times, we can postpone for a year, not even for a few months or weeks, our fight against the deficit nor efforts towards better management of public funds. It seems we have wasted a year and that is very disappointing.

What do we expect from the next budget? A decrease in expenditures, naturally; but we also hope it will propose a complete tax reform. We have heard nothing along that line yet. We feel as though we were preaching in the wilderness. We

cannot wait for the government to announce even a slight intention of addressing that issue, of reviewing our very complex personal and corporate tax system. Such a measure would increase the confidence of Quebecers and Canadians alike in their taxation system and thereby, their confidence in their representatives and institutions.

We expect a simplification of the process. As my colleague, the member for Portneuf said: very few people can prepare their own income tax return. It is not an easy task to read the Tax Guide; even the one you receive with the short form is quite exacting. Just think of the elderly; it is not easy for them. Even if we prepare specific short forms for senior citizens, it remains too complex.

There are many measures that could benefit people who, unfortunately, do not understand them. They do not know that they apply to them. They are ill-equipped to use the tools they are told could be of benefit to them. They hear about them from a friend or a colleague, but more often than not, they ask an expert, such as an accountant, to prepare their income return for them. These people do not tell them what they should do to improve their financial situation and personal planning. It is very complicated and that is the reason why very often new tax measures bear more heavily on the middle-class since it is having a difficult time adapting rapidly to changes or even understanding quickly the tax system.

Those who can benefit fully from it are the most wealthy, which causes people to say that the system is unfair. You do not have to go very far. We all have heard, at one time or another, someone in our riding say that the system is unfair, that the rich pay less taxes. Even if there is a trend, statistics show that, on the whole, it is not true; of course there are exceptions, and even a few are already too many. They create a lot of discontent.

Let us look more closely at the dozen of provisions contained in the bill. The first one is interesting to look at and study from the following point of view. On this side, we often talk about overlapping jurisdictions. But we forget to mention interdepartmental co-operation, a very complicated issue. The Auditor General mentioned it and pointed at a lot of things that could be improved. The government is doing something with one hand and doing something else with the other that reduces the effect. In last year's budget, this first measure said that unemployment insurance premiums would be reduced as a way to create more jobs and to encourage businesses to hire more people. This year, it was already announced that unemployment insurance premiums would go up at the beginning of January. In the same year, they give with one hand and take with the other. People have trouble getting a clear message from that. There is something very contradictory. In the same fiscal year, there was a change of government, but the policy orientation is hard to grasp. I am the first one to say so. Why did they do that? We suppose that they took the money to finance the infrastructure program. That may be a reason or it may be to finance something else as well. But I have trouble understanding why with all those resources and so many competent people around, we find ourselves in situations where contradictory measures are taken, not by the same government but by the same level of government. To be sure, we can understand that in some cases the federal and provincial governments act differently, since they do not always share the same policy orientation, but it is very hard to accept the same level of government acting in a way that contradicts itself.

There are also temporary investment tax credits for small business. The temporary nature of this measure-

Madam Speaker, would you please ask hon. members to-

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

It is an outrage to suggest it is a gift. I refuse to accept it and I challenge him to come and debate the issue during the referendum campaign in Quebec in the same forums I will attend, so that Quebecers and Canadians can look at the real figures and get the whole picture.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was deeply shocked, I must say, by the previous speaker's comments because I think they show a profound ignorance of the whole tax system, of the way government revenue is collected, as well as a mathematical oversimplification. I even wonder whether he understands the overall purpose of federal transfers and how they work. He should be looking at established programs, at what has happened in the education and health sectors to find out what is going on and recognize the strong tendency behind it.

Equalization enables us to measure the capacity of a province to collect revenue. It is this factor that determines whether a province is defined as rich or poor. He should take into account the fact that many decisions made by the federal government, particularly Quebec's non-involvement in research and development, has led to Quebec being seen as a province that does not have the same capacity to collect tax revenue. Other actions by the federal government prevent Quebec from doing this.

We should not act in isolation. If he wants to do it, I can do it with him. I have before me figures on defence spending. Quebec, with 25.5 per cent of the population, only receives 17.4 per cent of spending, an annual shortfall of $565 million. The hon. member should not indulge in fiscal oversimplication.

If we look at the whole picture, as we did during the election campaign when we had all the data, he would be surprised to see how unfavourable federalism is to Quebec from a fiscal point of view. We do not get our fair share given all that we pay and what we get in return.

Saying that equalization is a gift is an outrageous attitude. Quebecers also pay taxes here.

[Cigarette Taxes, February 8th, 1994]

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

Has the government planned measures to stop smugglers if they go to sources other than Canadian manufacturers?

[Cigarette Taxes, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in its action plan against cigarette smuggling, the government announces that it will introduce an $8 export tax on each carton. However, the last export tax on cigarettes was a total fiasco and had to be withdrawn in April 1992, after being applied for only two months.

Has the Prime Minister obtained assurances from tobacco manufacturers to the effect that they will not move their operations and start exporting jobs to Puerto Rico and the United States to avoid the new tax, as they did in 1992?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the hon. member for Longueuil whose example of Statistics Canada illustrated the situation well. A little over a year ago, I did some work, a study on research and development expenditures. As it were, almost all the money spent within the federal government, the intramuros expenditures as we call them were made here, in Ottawa and the National Capital region. So, by force of circumstance, most of the R and D investments are made in this region.

In some cases, the determining factor is the fact that the National Research Council is located here, but that does not explain everything and even then, the rest of the R and D funds should be distributed more equitably. That is why, as the hon. member said, we must look at the causes and the root of problems if we want to have a clear understanding.

I would like to mention a point that is coming back to me regarding the definition of the standards mentioned earlier. We would not be too happy in some ways-and I do not know what the hon. member for St. Boniface thinks of this-if we were to have common standards and that standards set by the Americans would apply to Quebec and Canada. It would not always be

pleasant to have models that are far from our reality, especially in the area of health, where we have a completely different system here, although the Americans are starting to lean in our direction now.

In that regard we must be careful. This does not mean that we cannot agree eventually to standards in very specific areas like the environment, as I pointed out earlier. But for the rest, we must be very careful with regard to standards and that is why we have this plan.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

One should not believe that the Bloc is alone in taking this stand. There is a fairly broad consensus in Quebec on the issue of national standards. One need only look at manpower training to realize how difficult it is to have common programs.

I think that the principle here is not being grasped. When the Meech Lake agreement was signed, there was a willingness to recognize the principle of two nations. Language and culture are not the only things that set a nation apart. Often it is the way things are done. We have different aims and we go about solving certain problems differently. National standards prevent us from achieving our goals since they are defined and often imposed

even by virtue of the sums of money allocated. This is very difficult to accept.

If each side were able to set its own standards, this would not preclude, for example, that at the international level-and this is a very specific example and I would hope that this would be the case in the future, even though it would prove very difficult-there would be general agreement on minimum environmental standards to be met. This would be desirable.

Which is not to say that minimum standards should be set to instruct each community on the training of its workers. Each economic milieu has its own specific characteristics, its own special niches, therefore, it can adapt more quickly. National or broad measures or standards are often cumbersome or slow to respond. The closer one is to that milieu, the more one is grounded in reality and the quicker one is to react.

The constraints we now face in terms of international economic development, namely the opening up of markets and the free movement of goods, capital and people, mean that those who have the ability to respond the fastest will be the ones who are best able to cope in the future. We have to avoid getting bogged down in national standards that are not to our liking, often do not correspond to our needs and create a great deal of friction between Canadians and Quebecers because they cannot agree on their definition.

When Quebec is a sovereign country, and I hope this comes to pass, we will set our own standards, while Canadians will set theirs. I think that it will be much easier for both sides to set their own standards and if we were to agree eventually on common standards in specific areas such as the environment, well then so much the better. But first, we have to start with the basics, with our own milieu. This is the preferred approach of the Bloc Quebecois and of a good many Quebecers.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3, an act to amend the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and more precisely the equalization system in place, is not a very exciting subject. If invited to give a lecture somewhere, one would certainly choose another topic to grab the public's attention.

However, even if it represents a somewhat boring task, we must have debates like this one, especially in this House. Today we must examine closely the bill on equalization payments. Of course there are precise measures we must look at because they come to term at the beginning of April, but equalization is a measure which is part of the complete transfer program.

Members will know that transfers are crucial for the provinces. These payments represent a very important part of their revenues, a share which has decreased over the recent years, particularly in Quebec we look at the province's situation as a whole.

We examine the equalization system today, but soon, next year, there will be other obligations, we will have to examine other transfers, particularly as regards established programs financing. Even if it looks like transfers are being increased in that area, we must be very careful and follow closely any future developments. We cannot have this debate and disregard the present state of government finances. The finance minister cannot but take it into account when reviewing transfer payments to the provinces. It is probably his main concern, which explains his drifting away from the initial objectives of the equalization system.

We do not want to disregard the present state of government finance, however, we cannot ask others to make choices for us. In the past few years, it has been a concern and a trend which could very well continue.

Let us not forget that, during the election campaign, it was very difficult to pinpoint the position of the Liberal Party in this respect. The position of the Conservative Party was much clearer: transfer payments to the provinces would be cut. Among the Liberal ranks, they did not talk a lot about that; they skirted the issue and talked instead about the infrastructure program; they kept on pointing at the infrastructure program as a means of creating jobs, but we never got to the bottom of things regarding what the Liberal Party really intended to do with the whole issue of transfer payments to the provinces.

At the very beginning of their mandate, they came out with the first part of their plan, saying: "Look, we are not going to cut transfer payments to the provinces,» since it appears that we are going to have a 5 per cent increase in equalization payments this year. And they gave us projections. But we have to be careful regarding this 5 per cent, especially compared with the objectives of the equalization system; I will get back to that later on.

Let us look at what transfer payments comprise. They are made up of four parts, for a total of $40.5 billion a year in federal expenditures.

First, there is established programs financing, mainly in the education and health care fields; it is a very important part. Then, there is the Canada Assistance Plan, which deals more with social assistance, and accounts for around $7.8 billion; it is indeed a lot of money. The third part is the equalization payments which total approximately $8 billion. There is also cost-shared program financing which is one of the central elements, with $12 billion.

There has been much pulling out in this regard in the last few years. What causes a major problem is that the government attaches so-called common objectives to these shared costs and then pulls out, leaving the provinces to shoulder the burden of these programs by themselves or to pay the political price when they are axed.

It is not always easy to explain this to taxpayers who, understandably, cannot follow closely what goes on every day. But we recently went through a gradual transfer that started here and ended up with the municipalities. It is not easy for a mayor or a city councillor to explain that budget cuts in federal transfers to provinces led provincial governments to make more difficult choices that ended up in the municipalities' court. It is obvious that, from a political standpoint, efforts are being made to soften the blow.

All this was done to make users more aware of costs. It is not necessarily a bad thing, but we must be careful: objectives and cutbacks are not always defined in the same terms as we do not always agree.

The equalization system is special in the sense that it transfers money to provincial governments, which have much more flexibility to do with it what they want.

It is these four elements that define transfer payments. Let us now look at the basic objective of the equalization system, which is one of these elements.

The basic objective of equalization is to ensure horizontal or vertical redistribution. This can seem very theoretical but the objective is to ensure that, in the end, each province has the same capacity to provide an adequate level of service.

Equalization measures the provinces' capacity to collect revenue according to various factors and a 31-element tax base. This is all very complex. Equalization is a mathematical system that would give nightmares to any professor having to teach it in a maths course, even an advanced maths course. Not many people are looking at this closely to try to understand how the system works, but it is important. These very serious matters affect our daily decisions and actions. And these links are not easy to establish.

So, after assessing the capacity of the provinces to generate revenues, you compare it to a sample of five provinces, make some adjustments, and translate the result in dollars per capita. That gives you the amount of money to be given to the provinces. There are seven provinces which actually get some money under this program, including Quebec, which will receive, yes, $3.7 billion out of the $8.4 billion set out for next year. There are reasons for this, and I will get back to them, because I heard the hon. member for Calgary West refer to them earlier, and I will address this issue in a little while.

This whole issue is important for the Bloc Quebecois, but there is one thing we have to remember. Soon, Quebecers will have collective choices to make. At that time, it is true that we will not have to deal with this equalization system. We may have to create another one within our own country. Nevertheless, this system will not be affecting us, not anymore. Meanwhile, the Bloc Quebecois has to protect Quebec's interests here and play its role as the Official Opposition. That is what we are going to do, and that is what we are doing. We will try to improve the whole principle behind the transfers to the provinces. There is room for a lot of improvement.

The bill before us has two major flaws. The first one is the ceiling, which affects the basic principle of the equalization system, since transfers are subject to a maximum level of 5 per cent if economic growth is higher. Given the situation, some of the richer provinces will be able to get even richer, and if the poorer provinces have trouble generating revenues, the gap will widen. At the present time, in spite of the equalization system, there is a 12 per cent difference in the capacity to generate revenues between the have provinces and the have-not provinces. You should remember that that capacity is what differentiates the richer provinces from the poorer provinces.

A previous ceiling was set at the end of the 1980s, and another one for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Of course, during the recession, when economic growth was slower, the ceiling had less severe consequences, but still resulted in a decrease of $2.9 billion in transfers. Of the additional $2.9 billion in transfers, $1.8 billion would have gone to Quebec. These lost revenues forced Quebec to make the difficult choices I was telling you about a moment ago. They forced Quebec to gradually pass the burden on to the municipalities and, increasingly, to the taxpayers.

We will not be able to say forever that the principle of equalization justifies the measures now being taken. It is not the principle, it is the fiscal constraints that justify these measures. Let us not mince words. We have to say it because it is the truth. That is the reason for this provision. As I was saying at the beginning of my remarks, the fact that the government wants to increase transfer payments does not mean that we will not have to examine the whole issue of transfers to the provinces. We have to look at what is going on to realize that there is an election looming in Quebec. I can hardly imagine the present premier, Mr. Daniel Johnson, campaigning with cuts in equalization payments pending, on top of all the other problems he has to face. This would be very difficult for him since he will have to demonstrate the effectiveness of federalism, including from a fiscal point of view. It will be a real challenge for him, and I can tell you that we will be there to take part in this debate and he will have to prove his point. So, this will be very difficult for him.

But what will happen next year, when the election is over and other programs have to be renewed? It is something that we will have to watch. Maybe this is just a smokescreen to hide the Minister of Finance's real intentions, and this is why we heard him say that it would be a tough budget this year, that he would reduce the deficit to perhaps $38 billion. We will know soon. But watch what will happen next year, watch where the money is going to come from.

The other principle contained in the bill is that there will be changes-and that is even more technical-in tax bases as such and in their composition. It would be interesting if the committee could review the regulations in order to evaluate their impact more precisely. We already have an idea of that impact but they really should be made available to the committee.

In that regard the Quebec government has some demands of its own, especially in the field of property taxation, that may seem legitimate in certain respects and that deserve to be examined. The finance committee could take a look at it. That would add to its workload but that committee does not have a reputation for idleness. We will give it a look.

I would now like to speak about the results of equalization because one day we might have to question the way transfers are made to provinces. I repeat, despite equalization, there is a 12 per cent gap between the fiscal capacity of the richest and the poorest provinces, even though equalization has been paid all these years. The principle of transfers to the provinces has existed since after World War II. Inequities are still visible across Canada; all regions have not reached the same level of development. That can be explained and I will do that while commenting a bit on the speech of my colleague, the hon. member from Calgary West, who said that what counts is not the amounts spent but the quality of the spending.

In this regard, we fail to understand why the federal government has spent so little on research and development in Quebec compared to Ontario which does not get equalization payments. But then one cannot have it both ways. One cannot get 50 per cent of all research and development expenditures and, at the same time, equalization payments that are often used to finance shared cost programs, welfare programs and so forth.

We would very much prefer a better dollar. We would be quite proud to contribute to equalization rather than benefit from it. It would be a sure sign that we have greater fiscal capacity and are in a better financial situation.

We do not need to be geniuses to understand that provinces who do not benefit from our equalization system are in a relatively good financial situation. Ontario, as we shall see, experienced numerous problems in the last few years. But British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario get by pretty well.

Things do not look as good in Quebec, because of a lack of vision or all kinds of reasons. Expenditures and investments there have been ill advised. Spending was done more on structures than on research and development. It would be interesting to look at other programs too. Those issues are being discussed. During the election campaign, we talk about them to a certain extent, and even quite a bit. In the next few years, this House will have to look at them because the political context will leave us no other choice. We will prove our point, and we will be delighted to hold the debate the hon. member for Calgary West mentioned earlier.

A little while ago, I skimmed through a fascinating magazine called Options politiques in which an article by Gilles Godbout lists a number of points in his assessment of the equalization system of federal transfers to provinces. He points out a number of contradictions. He says, and I will quote his five points, starting with the following: The importance of the redistribution function played by transfer payments to provinces has been recognized in the 1982 Constitution Act. The purpose of equalization, which is to guarantee that provinces have enough revenues to ensure comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxation, was even spelled out in the Constitution.

The same year, the federal government placed a ceiling on equalization payments, thus reducing the redistributive effect of the program. This is the first contradiction in the first year.

Moreover, the federal government made repeated cuts to the other transfer programs, regardless of regional disparities, particularly in the funding of health and post-secondary education. When we look at the data on the system's funding, for health as well as post-secondary education, when we look at the contributions that are made, and I have looked only at those made for Quebec, I can tell you that the situation is tragic because payments are going down instead of going up.

In spite of its financial withdrawal, the government has reaffirmed its commitment to maintain national standards in the health sector. These standards significantly limit the provinces' capacity to better manage essential public services.

That is not new. Because of its spending power, the federal government always wanted to set the standards, although when it reduces financing, they stay the same. We soon discovered the problems that caused for the provinces. It is very hard to maintain standards, requiring funds, when there is no money available.

Finally, it is said that the federal government is interfering in several sectors with its shared cost programs, a fact advantageous to provinces with a high spending power. Of course, it is often a question of money per capita. This way, the provinces which are well off are managing quite well. Members who are interested in equalization and transfers to provinces could find that article very revealing.

Now, let us examine the situation as a whole, in the few minutes left. The Bloc Quebecois is sensitive to public finance issues and that is why we suggested alternatives. We said we wanted to look at expenditures item by item. We would like a review of the tax system which is generating a lot of unfair and unjust privileges. We are ready to work towards this end. A lot of work is being done, but a lot more could be done to make this into something very positive. This is very important for the economy of Quebec and the Canadian economy.

I am afraid that the whole problem of public spending will be passed on to the provinces and that they will have to pay the price and make some difficult choices, the choices we have trouble making here, or that the government will try to make them start sooner. It may be tempting to look at items like transfer payments to the provinces, which total $40.5 billion and are a major share of the federal budget, and say that we will

start cutting there. This would force the provinces to go the same route. It is risky to take the lead and impose certain standards. Federal spending powers mean that the government remains involved in a lot of areas where there is overlap, because of joint standards. We must also realize that taxes raised at both levels are used for the same purpose. The system is not exactly a model of efficiency.

We must be vigilant in this respect, and we intend to monitor this very closely. As I said earlier, I am mainly concerned about the fact that this year, equalization payments will be increased, but with a ceiling, which in our opinion is inefficient. Wait and see what happens next year to the rest of the transfer payments to the provinces, and watch the announcements in the next budget.

I intend to keep today's speech and take it out again and look at it after next year's budget. I am sure there will be some drastic cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. That is an easy prediction to make. It is understandable in the current political climate that we should want to wish to help our federalist friends from Quebec on the other side of the House and support a one-year postponement of cutbacks in transfer payments to the provinces.

In concluding, there are a number of measures that would be appropriate to improve equalization and the system of transfer payments to the provinces, and I will mention a few. Reforms should be carried out in accordance with certain principles. Criticism should be constructive.

First of all, there should be no cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, either in real terms or per capita, to ensure that fairness remains a part of the equation and that the provinces are able to offer quality services to their residents. There is also the question of national standards which do not reflect Quebec's specific needs. National standards have always been a problem. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot referred to this earlier, and we often hear people talking about problems generated by national or joint standards and the time it takes to solve these problems.

My next point concerns federal interference, especially in matters of provincial jurisdiction, which is another source of inefficiency. Reforms should aim at improved redistribution of revenues among the various provinces, especially in the case of equalization payments. The ceiling on such payments should be removed, since it contradicts the very principles of the system. Reforms should provide incentives for more effective financial management. This measure concerns shared cost programs such as the Canada Assistance Plan.

These are the principles that would guide us if we had a choice and if the government were willing to change the transfer payments system. Of course, there will be choices to make in Quebec so that eventually we may be ahead of the game. Nevertheless, these principles would be useful for all Canadians. The situation is serious because of the inequities in the system. I will now conclude my speech, Mr. Speaker.

Injustice is often the root cause of disobedience, civil or otherwise, as we have seen in the smuggling issue. People must feel there is fairness in the system. It is not enough to talk about fairness and justice. We must practise what we preach. And we could start right now by removing the ceiling in this bill. It would certainly be an improvement.

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, we cannot support this bill and intend to vote against it.