Bill Gilmour

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my colleague's comments and start out by asking what is a promise. A promise is an assurance that one will or will not undertake a certain action. A promise is a statement of integrity, a statement made with integrity. It is a commitment that is not to be broken. When we talk about keeping promises we talk about building trust.

On the campaign trail the Prime Minister said: "There is not one promise that I have made that I will not keep". That has now become a joke. This government has broken more promises in the past three years than it has kept.

Regarding the GST, the Liberals promised to scrap, abolish, kill, eliminate, get rid of GST. This is a promise they took from door to door. This was a major cornerstone of the Liberals election campaign.

On October 29, 1990 the current Prime Minister said: "I am opposed to the GST. I have always been opposed to it and I will always be opposed to it". The current Minister of Finance stood in the House of Commons on November 28, 1989 and said: "The goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax". On April 4, 1990 he said: "I would abolish the GST". On November 6, 1991 the current Deputy Prime Minister asked the Tory government why it was pursuing a GST policy that "kills Canadian jobs and puts a heavy burden on our tourist industry". On March 24, 1994 the current revenue minister stated: "As Liberals we were elected to change the tax, abolish the tax, scrap it".

The Deputy Prime Minister campaigned that she would resign if the GST were not abolished under a Liberal government. Rather than resign, she stepped down and ran a second election in her riding which cost Canadian taxpayers $.5 million.

Last March Reform put forward a motion to abolish the GST. One hundred and thirty Liberals, including the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, all voted to keep the GST. Their vote against the motion proves that they have absolutely no intention of keeping their election promise.

Clearly, killing the GST promise is just another broken promise in a long string of broken promises. The Liberals claim to have fulfilled 75 per cent of their 1993 campaign promises. We checked. We found that they have fulfilled only 22 per cent of their promises. Some record. That is a record of shame.

The red book says there is little room to raise taxes and that long term goals should be tax relief. The Liberals also claim they have not raised taxes. In fact, the Liberals have increased taxes 30 times in the past three budgets as well as instituting higher sales taxes for Atlantic Canadians.

The government made many campaign promises to scrap the GST. During the campaign Canadians did not hear anything about harmonizing the tax with the provinces. Rather than scrap the GST, the Liberal government is in the process of harmonizing the GST with the provinces to create a new sales tax, a harmonized sales tax, HST. Instead of removing the GST, the Liberals are now trying to hide the GST by including new harmonized taxes in the price of goods.

I cannot wait until the next election when Canadians will show the Liberals what they think of this broken promise, the same as the Canadians did with the Conservatives regarding the GST. Three Atlantic provinces have signed on to this deal, this harmonization deal. GST harmonization in Atlantic Canada merges provincial sales tax with the 7 per cent GST to create a single tax of 15 per cent to be implemented on April 1. It is odd that it should be coming on April Fool's Day.

The provinces that have signed on are Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The harmonized tax, the HST, is nothing more than a super tax grab on consumer spending. It is simply another tax grab.

From the last 13 years of Liberal and Tory rule, on average Canadian taxpayers now pay an extra $1,126 a year simply in

increased sales and excise taxes. The HST if applied right across the country will raise these taxes even higher.

In addition, the harmonized sales tax will apply to more goods than are currently taxed on retail sales. Consumers in the Atlantic provinces that signed on to the deal will pay higher taxes on children's clothing, gasoline, books, funerals, new homes, heating oil, haircuts, used goods and even postage stamps. This simply means higher taxes for Atlantic Canadians.

For example the HST will push the price of a new house up by 5.5 per cent. Some deal. Higher operating costs for landlords will mean that renters will pay higher rents.

There are also concerns that the tax included pricing will cause chaos not only in the Atlantic provinces but in the rest of Canada. According to the Retail Council of Canada, national retailers will be forced to change computerized inventory systems and separately price goods bound for the Atlantic region. This alone will cost $100 million.

With harmonization, Canadians will have one tax included price in Atlantic Canada while the rest of the country will function with prices that do not include GST or sales tax on the label. There will be two separate systems.

The harmonized sales tax is not only unfair to Atlantic Canadians who will pay higher taxes on many items, it is also unfair to the rest of Canada which will be paying $1 billion in compensation to the Atlantic provinces for lost tax revenue. Once again the west is financing the east with a $1 billion transfer of wealth to Atlantic Canada.

The combined sales taxes in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are currently 18 per cent. In Newfoundland the combined rate is 20 per cent. A 15 per cent combined rate is a deal for Atlantic Canada. The rate will be reduced. That is the reason for the $1 billion transfer.

There are no advantages to provinces that pay a combined sales tax which is less. For example, Alberta has no provincial sales tax and only has the 7 per cent GST. Why would it want to enter into harmonization and go from the 7 per cent GST and no provincial tax to a 15 per cent tax? Try to sell that in Alberta. Tax systems across the country should be equitable, yet this deal is hardly equitable for Canadians outside the Atlantic provinces.

Furthermore there are concerns that revenue shortfalls as a result of lowering the tax rates may be made up by changes in equalization formulas. Canadians could see an increased redistribution of wealth from western Canadian taxpayers to the maritime provinces for nothing more than what are purely political reasons. Because the GST promise was not fulfilled, the government is now going to the HST. The result is that a transfer of wealth is going right across the country to fix the deal. It is strictly political and it is absolutely wrong.

Harmonization will not work in central and western Canada because as I stated earlier, at present the combined rates are less than 15 per cent.

Furthermore it does not make any sense for Ottawa to adopt a policy that calls on all Canadians to pay the same taxation rates regardless of where they live. Provincial taxation rates are based on provincial needs. There is no reason for a national tax rate right across the country.

All provinces simply will not come onside with this agreement. Some provinces have no sales tax, such as Alberta. Other provinces have a provincial rate that is less than 8 per cent, so the combined rate of 15 per cent simply does not make any economic sense for those provinces to buy on. Alberta, Ontario and B.C. are simply not willing to discuss the federal proposal. Support is very weak in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and P.E.I. The HST simply does not work and it will not work.

It is my understanding that in the beginning the government was going to call this the blended sales tax. Perhaps it should have done that. Now it is the harmonized sales tax, the HST. Of course a blended sales tax would be a BST. Many Canadians are seeing that a BST is very much what this bill is creating.

When will the government understand that tax increases mean job losses? If the Liberals are serious about getting our economy back on track and creating jobs, then they must start by giving business incentives to create employment. That means lowering taxes, not raising them, as they are doing with the HST.

[Ways And Means, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unless I am mistaken, you asked for the approval of the House, but the government whip did not say which way the government was going to vote.

[Canada Post, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post mandate review recommends that the government appoint to the board of Canada Post only individuals with the expertise and stature to be directors of a similar sized corporation in the private sector.

However, like most recommendations in the report, it appears this one will be ignored as well.

Last month Gilles Champagne, a long time Quebec Liberal fundraiser, was appointed to the Canada Post board of directors. Mr. Champagne is well known for the $1,000 a plate fundraising dinner he organized for the Prime Minister.

Last week Brian Steck was appointed to the Canada Post board of directors. Mr. Steck's qualifications appear to be that he works for Nesbitt Thomson, a company that gave over $197,000 to the federal Liberal Party since 1993.

When will the Liberal government end the despicable practice of rewarding party supporters and appoint only qualified members to boards as recommended in the Canada Post revue and promised in the red book?

[Softwood Lumber, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should listen to my colleagues on this side: 600 jobs in one riding, 400 jobs in another riding. If chaos is being introduced, he has introduced it. Cancel the lumber deal. Cancel it now.

[Softwood Lumber, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, because of the softwood lumber deal negotiated with the United States, U.S. lumber companies are reaping huge profits from increased lumber prices. Meanwhile, Canadians are losing sawmill jobs.

American consumers want this bad deal cancelled because according to the American National Association of Home Builders, the deal is costing Americans $3,000 more to build a house. Canadians want the deal cancelled because mills are forced to shut down, costing Canadian jobs.

The only group benefiting from this softwood lumber deal is the American lumber lobby, the same group the government caved in to during negotiations.

Will the minister take steps to immediately cancel the softwood lumber deal with the United States?

[Lumber Industry, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the reverse. It is now the companies that are accusing this government of conspiracy.

The minister has stated in this House that he has no problems if individual companies publicly divulge their lumber allocation quotas. The problem is that only the minister knows which companies were allotted quotas.

In order to save jobs, individual mill owners must be able to negotiate allocations between themselves. However, they do not know the players because the minister refuses to release the names to the public.

In order to save sawmill jobs, will the minister table a full list of companies receiving lumber quotas?

[Lumber Industry, November 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this government ran on a platform of jobs, yet thousands of jobs are being lost in sawmills right across the country. Mills are shutting down because lumber quotas, which this government controls, are being allocated in secret. The provinces and the companies agreed on the allocation formula, however they did not and do not agree with all the secrecy. Mill owners cannot understand why there is so much secrecy regarding a resource that is owned by the public. Mill owners feel that the minister is playing politics with their jobs.

My question is for the minister of trade. As the minister refuses to table individual mill quotas thus keeping them secret, will he at least table a full list of companies that received lumber quotas in the last round?

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, two of the issues that face families today are high unemployment levels and taxation. We constantly hear from across the floor the parliamentary secretary talking about all the jobs that the government has created. I find it very odd that when the Liberals came to power there were 1.4 million Canadians out of work and presently there are 1.4 million Canadians out of work.

It is not low interest rates that are causing the problem. Low interest rates should fuel the economy-

[Constitution Act, 1867, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-284, which proposes to strengthen and protect individual property rights through a number of legislative measures.

The member and I have worked together because I had a similar votable motion, No. 205, which was debated in the House on June 10, September 30 and November 5. The procedure was very interesting because I received a number of inquiries from Liberal members who were interested in the bill. Since it was a private member's bill they would have the opportunity to vote impartially, so-called.

However, when it came time to vote every Liberal voted against the motion. It is very rare in the House that on a private member's motion all members of a party will vote the same way. It was clear from my perspective that Liberal members had been told not to vote for the motion. The reason was it would have embarrassed the government on Bill C-68 dealing with firearms. It would have embarrassed the government on the endangered species act, because if a specific plant grew on your land, a little extension of this legislation could mean that the government could move in and take the land without compensation. This is where the Liberals are coming from.

Bill C-284 would guarantee that every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property and the right not to be deprived of that property unless the person is accorded a fair hearing, paid fair compensation, the amount of that compensation is fixed by an impartial person, and the compensation is paid within a reasonable amount of time.

It does not tie the government's hands. Reform is saying that if we take something away for the public good then the owner must be compensated. This is not rocket science. The Americans have it, other provinces and countries have it, yet when comes to Canada this appears to be somewhat vague.

In addition to the property rights provision proposed in my motion, Bill C-284 proposes specific legislative measures to strengthen and protect the bill of rights.

Section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms provides:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Canadians believe in a free and democratic society, fundamental justice and the necessity for fairness. Most believe that property rights are among those very basic rights. Yet property rights, as opposed to what the member from the Bloc would say, are not protected. I want to make that very clear. There is no guarantee of fair treatment by the courts, tribunals or officials who have the power over individuals or corporations. There is simply no reason why a government should have the freedom to expropriate private property without fair, just and timely compensation, and this is what this bill is about.

In the past there have been many attempts to deal with private property concerns and I will run by a bit of history on where we are going.

In 1960 John Diefenbaker introduced and passed the Canadian Bill of Rights. The bill of rights includes property rights yet the guarantee of protection is marginal at best. There is no provision that government must pay just compensation whenever it expropriates property.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau fought to include property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms, yet the Liberals have voted down my motion, the same Liberals across the floor of this House. It just does not make any sense; a former prime minister pushing for rights and yet these people across the floor are opposed to them.

In 1968 Mr. Trudeau as the minister of justice tabled a Canadian charter of human rights which included protection of property rights.

In 1969 Prime Minister Trudeau wrote that the charter should protect the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property.

In 1978 Mr. Trudeau's constitutional amendment bill included a clause representing fundamentally the same protection he had suggested 10 years earlier.

In 1980 Trudeau attempted to include the property rights clause in the proposed charter.

As minister of justice our current Prime Minister supported Trudeau's attempt to include property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. The Prime Minister described property rights as "a central value of our society and an essential agreement for the charter, a right which all Canadians should have regardless of where they live in our country".

I am disappointed that our present Prime Minister did not stand by his words and vote for property rights in this House.

In 1982 Pierre Trudeau made the last attempt to include property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1982 property rights were left out of the charter and Canadians were denied property rights once again. In 1988 the House voted overwhelmingly to support a motion that proposed: "The 1982 Constitution Act be amended in order to recognize the right of enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal provincial consultative process".

This was passed in the House with a majority of 108 votes of support versus 16 against.

Clearly this points out that through the 20 years in the history of this House various administrations have supported private property rights. It did not get that far and it is not in legislation, but the leaders have supported it. Yet here we have the crowd across the floor trashing it again. Property rights were removed from the Charlottetown accord against the wishes of many Canadians. I would suggest that is one of the reasons why the Charlottetown accord failed. Any attempts to entrench property rights within the charter have failed.

My colleague's bill, Bill C-284, avoids concern about federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-284 applies only to federal law and to operations of the federal government. That is important. It does not tromp on provincial territory, as the Bloc member was saying.

Most provinces support the entrenchment of property rights. British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick have passed resolutions supporting the inclusion of property rights in the charter. In a 1987 Gallup poll 87 per cent of the people supported increased property right protection. It is there. The Canadian people want it and yet the Liberals refuse to recognize it.

Many national organizations have also come out in favour of greater protection for property rights, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Real Estate Association, to mention but a few. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Canada in 1948, commits Canada to the protection of property rights. Article 17 reads: "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of this property". That was signed by Canada in 1948 and here we are, 50 years later, still arguing about it.

A number of other democratic countries have already taken the lead, as I suggested earlier. The United States, Germany, Italy and Finland all have private property rights. Why is it that we in Canada, supposedly the best country in the world, do not have protection for individual property rights? It is absolutely wrong.

The fifth amendment of the United States constitution, adopted in 1791, provides that the federal government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without the due process of law and also stipulates that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.

Canada alone among the industrialized nations does not grant some form of constitutional protection to property ownership. I do not understand why this government refuses to grant Canadians the protection which was agreed to almost 50 years ago.

Protecting property rights does not diminish the rights which Canadians already have or prevent the government from carrying out its duties for the common good of the nation.

Amending the charter of rights and freedoms requires the support, as my colleague said, of two-thirds of the provinces and 50 per cent of the population. Amending the Canadian Bill of Rights, as proposed by this bill and by my Motion No. 205, could be accomplished in the House.

Protection of these rights has been supported by all sides of the House in the past and this is the time to move forward.

In conclusion, the protection of individual property rights is a fundamental freedom which must be protected. It is time that the government took a serious look at property rights and put aside partisan concerns to work together for the common good of the people. I will be supporting my colleague in this bill.

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

The member is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason for my motion, to take it back to the committee

so the committee can examine it. This has been charged through far too quickly. The public right to fish, as the member says, is a 100 year old law. This is absolutely right.

It is this type of statement that puts people on the west coast in the frame of mind of saying: "Why does B.C. not take over the fishery? Obviously Ottawa does not care about it". It is this type of legislation that is fueling that sentiment. The member is correct. We want to take it back to the fisheries and oceans committee and deal with a number of these major concerns, call witnesses and deal with it in detail.