Roy Cullen

[Program Cost Declaration Act, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill of the hon. member for Durham. Essentially the bill calls for a full disclosure of costs for any legislation brought before the House, any regulations that are enacted or any other instruments that are implemented by the government.

This bill should be applauded. Canadians are demanding more accountability from their parliamentarians. I salute the hon. member for Durham for bringing this bill forward.

In the spirit of the bill, I am sure the member looked at the costs of implementing this particular bill. I would say that the costs of implementing this bill would be very limited. I am sure the member will bring forward those costs at a later date.

Most departments and most ministers do some kind of accounting or cost estimating of what the implementation of proposed measures will cost. I am sure those numbers are reasonably available. What the member is saying in this bill is that those costs should be brought before the House.

Too often in the past legislation has come before the House and has been passed without members knowing fully what the costs and the impacts of the legislation will be. In my view, there are different kinds of legislation. Some legislation costs a lot of money to implement and some costs very little. However, if the costs are not known, it is very difficult to make any kind of judgment.

Another element can creep into legislation and that is the problem of incremental costs. A small piece of legislation on its own may not be that costly to implement, but given other legislation and other initiatives, the cumulative costs can be quite significant. The bill would provide a very transparent process. It would ensure that members of the House would know what the implementation costs of the legislation would be.

This bill calls for that information to be prospective, not retrospective. What good does it do if the auditor general comes along later and says that a program cost X dollars and the benefits were less than the cost? At that point it is too late. This bill demands accountability up front in terms of disclosure. It is a much more appropriate way to deal with the issue.

I echo what other members have said before me. The bill is a start. It is certainly not the full solution. It is a first step in a very important process.

Other questions need to be answered when legislation is introduced and when regulations are implemented. For example, what would be the impact of legislation on other stakeholders? Other stakeholders could include other orders of government. It could mean the business community. It could mean a whole host of things. While the bill deals with the cost of implementing legislation within the federal government, we also have an obligation to analyse what legislation will do to other orders of government and to the business community.

For example, a tool has been developed by treasury board and Industry Canada which is called the business impact test. It is used to assist legislators and departments to assess the impact of proposed legislation on business. The business impact test is affectionately referred to as the BIT. It is an important tool which parliamentarians should encourage. There is nothing to stop that information from being presented in the House when other legislation and costs are presented.

When we look at the impact of legislation we should also be looking at alternatives. What alternatives were looked at before the department brought in the legislation? Are there market instru-

ments that could be used as effectively? Are there voluntary means that could be implemented to achieve the same goals?

We have a habit of bringing in laws and legislation telling business how to run and operate its business instead of putting in legislation which sets certain standards and criteria that are required and allowing the business community to develop the processes by which it could meet those standards. When that is not done, it adds another cost to the burdens of government. It also makes business more inefficient.

The way that laws and regulations are brought forward, developed and implemented are very complex. A number of processes are in place. Sometimes legislation is driven by the bureaucracy. Sometimes legislation is driven at the political level. Sometimes it is driven by stakeholder groups that create a demand.

We need to be very cautious that we do not fall into the trap of building empires, whether it is building empires for bureaucrats, special interest groups or politicians. This legislation really provides a vehicle for a full debate, full disclosure and full accountability at the start of any proposed initiative.

Often we debate legislation and the issues of public policy and law in this House. That is very important but too often we do not debate the fiscal impact of some of the initiatives that are brought forward.

Perhaps if we had done more of this in the past, we would not be facing the fiscal challenges we face today. Now is the time to start on a new program, on a new footing. This bill allows us to do that.

The effect of this bill, in my view, is that it will have a large deterrent effect that would be positive. In other words, private members or the government of the day will be reluctant to bring forward bills that have a heavy cost associated with them, and where the benefits are not clearly defined.

Government is not like business. It cannot always put legislation in the context of cost and benefit in the same kind of quantifiable way that can be done in business. However, it does not preclude governments from adopting some of that rigour and applying it in any way it can.

I applaud the member for bringing this forward. Legislation and regulations have a huge impact on the competitiveness of our industries. The market does not solve everything. We know that, and governments have a role to play.

We need to really examine carefully the impact that regulations and legislation have on businesses because the capacity and the ability of businesses to develop jobs and economic activity will be partly a function of the regulatory environment and the legislative environment in which they work and how that compares with those environments in the countries where competitors are domiciled.

If we do not really look at those elements on an incremental basis or on another basis, we can put businesses on a footing where they are not competitive to deal internationally or even within our own domestic markets.

This bill is a giant step forward. I applaud the member again for bringing it forward. I certainly will support it. I hope other members will.

I too would like to take this opportunity to wish everybody a very happy and safe holiday and a prosperous new year.

[Thistletown Community Breakfast Club, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, imagine the efficiency of a program that can feed breakfast to upwards of 200 children five days a week throughout the school year at a cost of 30 cents per child per day. Imagine the tremendous loss to the

children serviced by this program if it were to close down due to funding cuts.

I would like to acknowledge the outstanding service the Thistletown Community Breakfast Club provides to the children of Etobicoke North. The breakfast club at Greenholm Junior Public School provides a hearty breakfast for 200 children each morning before class.

The link between proper nutrition and educational performance is well documented. When children are preoccupied by hunger, they cannot concentrate on reading or arithmetic. This is a dangerous lost opportunity for both the child and for society as a whole.

Through the efforts of the small staff and committed volunteers at the Thistletown Community Breakfast Club, children from low income families are able to start their day in a positive way with healthy food and a chance to interact with peers and volunteers who care.

Both the mission and the financial operation of this program are impressive. I fully support the efforts of the Thistletown Community Breakfast Club. I urge those who control the funding for this essential service to continue to support this important program.

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-70.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley West conveniently forgot about the fact that the Atlantic premiers right now are going across Canada telling Canadians that because of the harmonized sales tax they have created a competitive advantage for companies which are located in Atlantic Canada. The harmonized sales tax will reduce or eliminate the embedded provincial sales tax which is already part of the cost structure of companies in provinces other than those which have harmonized their sales tax.

It is curious that the hon. member for Fraser Valley West also ignored that Canadians are saying they want the tax included when

they go to the cash register. They want it included because they are tired of going to the cash register, having the tax added and not knowing what price they are going to pay. Again the Reform Party is just not listening.

Until now the GST has had a bewildering array of complicated and sometimes contradictory rules for complying with the federal sales tax system in this country. Bill C-70, with its 130 or more amendments to the federal GST, goes a long way toward sorting out the confusion and easing the compliance burden. This bill responds to the views of Canadians across the country. Their message is very simple: Keep it simple and make the rules clear. I am very pleased to support the bill in the House today.

We have already heard why a value added tax is needed in Canada. Again the Atlantic provinces are taking full advantage of harmonizing their sales tax. It is creating a competitive disadvantage for companies in provinces like Ontario and other provinces which have higher costs. Over the medium and long run, companies in provinces that have not harmonized their sales tax will be competitively disadvantaged. I too have some concerns that the GST creates some anxiety for consumers, but in the medium and long run we will be more competitive if we harmonize our tax.

Others have spoken about the efforts made to implement the value added tax to make its rules more fair and simple. I would like to take this a step further by emphasizing some of the specific steps we have taken to clarify the more confusing aspects of the federal sales tax system in Canada. In many respects clarity is the source of simplicity and fairness. Once the rules, procedures and rationale are clear, Canadians will have a better understanding of both how and when the value added tax system applies to them. In the short history of the GST this has not always been the case.

We have heard how confusing the current tax legislation is regarding municipal services, with some services being exempt but similar services being taxable, depending on the circumstances. This situation has led to confusion and a perception of unfairness. By making most municipal services tax exempt, the government will clarify the situation and create a more level playing field. The compliance burden will be eased since municipalities and their appointed bodies will no longer be confused about when and if a service is taxable.

Specifically the situation regarding recyclable products will be cleared up. Under existing legislation there is confusion about the appropriate tax treatment for collecting these products. Are they garbage and therefore tax exempt, or are they not? Bill C-70 clarifies that the collection of recyclable materials and their delivery to a recycling facility is included in the exempting provision for garbage collection.

The treatment of public utilities has also been a source of befuddlement. Under current rules, services provided by a utility to a municipal government are tax exempt if the utility is owned by the government but taxable if it is not. This no longer will be the case.

Bill C-70 stipulates that the sale of gas, electricity, steam or telecommunications services by a public utility will always be taxable, even if the municipality receiving the service owns or controls the utility. This consistency across the board will make complying easier for municipalities. It may not please everybody, but on balance I think it is fair. Those municipalities that have their own utilities hopefully will be provided a transition period so they can provide for these costs in their budgeting procedures in advance.

In telecommunications services, this sector will also benefit from the measures we have taken to clarify the sales tax legislation as it applies to this sector. We will remove the confusion by defining more clearly what a telecommunications service is and when this service is defined as being performed in Canada.

This ease of compliance is reflected in other steps we have taken, steps that apply to the business community as a whole in Canada. We have heard about new rules that simplify the treatment of used goods and employee and shareholder benefits. These rules will benefit consumers and businesses alike.

Businesses will also find it easier to comply due to changes in the way GST registrants report and pay GST on some purchases of real property. Starting in 1997, registrants who have to self assess GST on a taxable purchase of real property that is primarily for commercial use will not have to complete a separate return to report the GST on that transaction. Instead they will report the GST on their normal GST returns. Anything we can do to reduce the paper burden and reduce the complexity for businesses is a very positive step forward.

Similarly this bill will clarify the rules for export services by Canadian services. As the current legislation is structured, Canadian businesses have a hard time determining if services they provide to non-residents qualify for zero rating. This is because the general zero rating provision includes a test that is often difficult to apply. That test asks the question: Where is the service primarily consumed, used or employed?

For example, what is the answer for a collection agency that provides services to a non-resident client? Where are the agent's services being used or consumed by the client? Or training services provided by Canadian businesses to employees in Canada of non-resident businesses. Where are these services consumed or used, inside Canada or outside when the employee returns to work at home? By clarifying when these services qualify for a zero

rating, we will make it easier for Canadian businesses to comply with the rules for export services.

The amendments we are proposing will also make business in Canada more competitive in both domestic and international markets. I touched on that earlier. While the current legislation does provide a favourable environment for domestic suppliers of goods and services, there is room for improvement.

We propose to make improvements in a number of ways. First services provided by Canadian sales and purchasing representatives through non-resident or foreign businesses will be zero rated. Second, a rebate will be provided for GST charged on installation services supplied in some non-resident businesses. Third, a broader range of goods and services relating to international transportation will be zero rated. Fourth, a zero rating provision for goods delivered abroad will be expanded.

These and other provisions will make Canadian business suppliers more competitive with non-resident suppliers who do not pay GST on their business inputs. These provisions are complemented by the steps we have taken to make Canada a better and more attractive place to do business. For example, we have extended the visitors' GST rebate beyond tourists to include non-resident businesses with employees who travel to Canada. These businesses will now be able to claim a rebate for GST they paid on short term accommodations. While these changes may not ease compliance for businesses directly, they will make the tax easier to bear.

We have taken steps with charities that will simplify the situation for them and also ease the weight of compliance. This is especially true for the smaller registered charities that only have basic accounting systems. For those organizations the current requirement that they apportion inputs between taxable and exempt supplies has proven onerous. It forces them to review all the rules and determine whether each of their activities is taxable or exempt. In some cases the judgment is purely arbitrary. Bill C-70 introduces a new streamlined method for charities to collect and remit tax on their taxable supplies.

We have heard from my hon. colleague about the amendments that apply to education. These changes too are designed to ensure that the GST is clear and less complicated in this area. The changes address inconsistencies in the eligibility criteria that apply to schools, universities and public colleges for claiming rebates. They make the definition of vocational schools more specific to exclude those institutions which do not primarily offer educational training.

It is fair to say that the amendments we are proposing to the value added sales tax system in Canada will make it easier for everyone to comply with their GST obligations. This lack of clarity in the current legislation has been among the biggest complaints from those Canadian citizens who honestly are trying to meet their sales tax obligations. We have heard these complaints and we have responded by introducing the amendments I have mentioned along with scores of others.

We have designed a sales tax system that is more user friendly, if I may use that term. It is a system that is easier to comply with and at the same time increases compliance and much needed revenues.

[Guru Nanak, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today members of the Sikh community around the world celebrate the birth of Guru Nanak, founder of the Sikh religion.

Although historians differ regarding the date of Guru Nanak's birth, it seems most probable that he was born in 1469. He was born in Talwandi, now called Nankana Sahib, located in Pakistan about 35 miles southwest of Lahore.

According to various biographers during his infancy he would become very troubled on seeing misery and when he was able to walk he would carry articles of food and clothing away from home and give them to the needy.

To this day members of the Sikh community have a profound respect for the needs of others and they live their lives according to this principle. It is this same humanitarian and compassionate nature that we as Canadians strive for as our country grows and continues to mature.

I ask members of the House and all citizens of Canada to join me in celebrating the birth date of Guru Nanak.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on the first question I would comment in a couple of ways, first on the indexing of the basic exemption. I have not seen the member's numbers. Frankly I am not sure if he is planning to give us the fresh start document as a stocking stuffer but I would be glad to read it over the holidays.

The member opposite was talking about the rate of inflation in Canada monetary policy. It is clear that inflation has been kept to a very low level. I would be surprised if those numbers even if indexing went forward would produce the kind of difference the member is talking about but I would be glad to look at his numbers.

As a government we would like to implement a lot of things and do more with tax but our job is to reduce the deficit. It is quite intriguing that the member talks about the Reform plan to first balance the budget and then put money into social programs. It was only six or eight months ago that the Reform Party was talking about reducing or completely eliminating the national debt. It was only in the last election that the Reform Party was talking of cuts of $12 billion out of social programs. In addition to what the finance minister had in his fiscal plan, now the member is talking about putting money into social programs. This new approach I find refreshing but it is a little inconsistent.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak today on the Reform Party motion which calls for the child care tax deduction to be converted to a tax credit.

I was interested in the comments of my colleague, the member for Broadview-Greenwood, when he asked the Reform Party member who spoke earlier about this new generosity of spirit as it relates to social programs. It seems to be a new position which has been taken by the Reform Party. I thought I heard a hint of increase in corporate taxes as well.

I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

As members have said today, when the Reform Party refers to a child care tax deduction, I believe it is really referring to the child care expense deduction. It is a matter of terminology and wording, but it is a point which should be clarified.

I am firmly committed to child care programs. I support a strong federal government role in the area of child care support. In fact, the government is on record as supporting a national child care program. The obstacle, certainly in the province of Ontario, is getting the provincial government to agree to cost share the program. Some would say that if the provincial governments will not cost share, why does the federal government not move unilaterally? I believe it would be wrong to do that. I do not see any rationale, in terms of fiscal policy or public policy, which would indicate that the federal government should unilaterally move on a

national day care program, even though I feel strongly that we need one.

Perhaps members of the Reform Party will talk to their colleagues at Queen's Park. They certainly seem to have their ear on many issues. Maybe they could convince them that they should move swiftly to co-operate with the federal government on a child care program.

Coming back to the specific motion which is before the House today, not unlike many Reform Party initiatives, it provides no relief to the individuals in our society who need the help most. Converting the child care expense deduction to a tax credit benefits only those who are paying income tax. Members of the Reform Party can talk about numbers here and numbers there and who benefits and who does not, but the fact remains that if it is changed to a tax credit, or even if it is an income tax deduction, it only affects people who are paying income tax.

I would like to speak about the individuals in my riding who are on unemployment insurance or welfare. They would not benefit from what is being proposed in this motion. These are the people who need it the most. Let me provide a specific example.

In my riding in Etobicoke North there are many members of the Somali community and many single parents, many mothers separated from their husbands with large families to support and maintain. In many cases they have no child care support so they cannot leave their dwelling to learn English. If they could learn English, they could better integrate into Canadian society. A child care tax credit with respect will do nothing for these individuals. There are many other individuals in our society who are in the same predicament.

Besides this major reservation of mine for this motion, the motion states that the Income Tax Act currently has a bias against parents caring for their children. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our government currently provides nearly $1 billion in tax assistance to families who provide care in the home for dependants. This is in addition to the $5 billion that the federal government provides in child tax benefit assistance.

Let me describe first the assistance the Income Tax Act provides to both parents and children and to persons with disabilities and families caring for elderly or disabled relatives. The child care expense deduction, which has been referred to today by my colleagues opposite, helps parents with modest incomes with child care expenses they incur while earning income or attending school full time or taking an eligible vocational training course.

In addition to the regular child tax benefit of $1,020 for each child, the child tax benefit supplement helps parents who choose to remain in the home to raise preschool age children. Assistance is provided to modest income families who have preschool age children but do not have deductible child care expenses. The supplement is $213 for each child six years old or younger.

Some of the Reform Party members earlier spoke of their models and of consultants who have run the numbers. I can say that the models I am familiar with indicate that the motion before us today would really impact beneficially 25 per cent of those people in this predicament and need.

The working income supplement is another. It helps low income working class families meet some of the extra costs related to earning employment income with a non-taxable benefit of up to $500. Changes introduced in the 1996 budget will double the supplement to $1,000. The working income supplement is available to two income families as well as single earner families where one spouse stays at home as a caregiver.

The Income Tax Act also provides assistance to persons with disabilities and to families caring for elderly or disabled relatives.

The disability tax credit provides important benefits for persons suffering from long term mental or physical disabilities. It reduces applicants' federal tax by approximately $720 and is equivalent to a tax rate of 17 per cent. The unused portion of the credit can be transferred to a parent contributing to the support of the disabled person.

Additionally we have the medical expense tax credit which provides tax relief to those with extraordinary medical expenses by providing a credit for medical expenses up to $5,000 in respect of part time attendant care expenses. This is specifically intended to help families caring for elderly or disabled relatives at home by providing tax assistance for part time or temporary attendant care. Families who care for elderly or disabled relatives can claim the unused amounts of the credit.

Persons caring for disabled relatives may also claim a disabled dependent credit, which was significantly increased in the 1996 budget. The credit reduces the federal tax payable by a maximum of $400, or the equivalent of a maximum deduction of $2,352 for a person whose income is in the 17 per cent tax bracket.

The Reform Party motion states that the government should convert the child care tax credit, meaning I believe as I stated earlier, the child care expense deduction to a tax credit. However, there is no discussion of the cost to the government of such a tax

expenditure. I find this most surprising from the Reform Party because it is supposed to be a fiscally responsible party. Perhaps I should not be surprised given its recent flip-flop from its focus on the deficit to its focus on tax reductions.

In the next few weeks I will supporting Bill C-214, a private member's bill proposed by the hon. member for Durham which calls for a full disclosure of costs for all legislation introduced into this House.

I have stated before in this House that the best social policies are jobs in a healthy economy. When the Minister of Finance brings in his budget next year I am quite confident he will not introduce measures such as this one to assist individuals in our society who do not need help or those who are already benefiting significantly from benefits already in the Income Tax Act. For this reason, I will not be supporting the motion.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest as the member of the Bloc argued this point about the tax ruling and the situation surrounding it. I am quite puzzled.

This is a highly complex area of tax law, despite the best intentions of the members of the Bloc and members like me. As the member for Willowdale pointed out, members of the Bloc had the opportunity to bring in their own experts but instead chose not to.

When the members of the Bloc stand up in this House it is usually to criticize members on our side for not answering their questions, but they have not really dealt with the question of why they did not bring in their own experts.

If they are saying the experts who were there were in the hands of the members of this party, that is a serious affront to the integrity of those professionals who did appear and it does not deal with the question of why they did not bring in their own experts.

When the members of the Bloc get up in the House it is really not to debate public policy. That has been my experience notwithstanding my short period in this House. When they get up it is to argue a parochial interest of the province of Quebec.

I wonder if their interest in this issue is not driven by fiduciary policy or interests of the Government of Canada and the people of Canada. Rather, they may be concerned about the flight of capital from Quebec not necessarily to the United States but perhaps to Ontario. It is known that this is happening which I think is tragic.

Perhaps the Bloc is positioning itself on this issue in terms of flight of capital. I cannot understand why it would have any other interest in this topic.

[Medicare, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend Canadians witnessed another flip-flop in Reform Party policy on medicare, but this is nothing new.

The leader of the Reform Party said in September 1993 his party would eliminate universality and then in October 1993 he said Reform is opposed to private health care.

The member for Macleod has said in the House that medicare is bad for everybody. He has also said medicare is important to all Canadians.

On April 22, 1996 the member for Calgary Centre complained in the House that his party's health care policy was being portrayed as a two tier system. However, at its assembly this weekend that is exactly what his party proposed, a two tier system that will give top quality care to the rich and leave a lower quality and less responsive system for everybody else.

Today's article in the Toronto Star indicates the Ontario Medical Association fully understands Reform Party policy. It knows Reform is proposing a two tier system. It is time for Reform to come clean with the rest of Canadians.

[South Africa, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian International Development Agency has concluded a five-year agreement with McGill University's faculty of education.

The purpose of this agreement is to assist the national and provincial governments of South Africa to develop an improved capacity for management and governance in education. Spearheading this initiative is a South African task team on education management development which is currently visiting Canada. Its members will be meeting with relevant Canadian institutes and individuals in order to develop a national strategy for sustainable and responsible education management in South Africa.

I take this opportunity to wish the task team members every success in their efforts and to commend McGill University, the University of Toronto, OISE, the Learning Consortium and the many other institutes involved for their assistance in this important venture.

[Immigration, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In my riding and in ridings across Canada are many refugees from Somalia who are held in limbo as they await the determination of their landed immigrant status. In the meantime, they are unable to go on with their lives or to live or work where they wish.

Can the minister tell me what developments there are with respect to the status of the Somali refugees?