Roy Cullen

[The Economy, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government's finance minister has consistently said that the government will do the right thing at the right time. We have the largest stimulus in Canadian history working its way through the economy. If we look at the Canadian tax cuts and the provincial tax cuts, it is almost 2% of GDP. Let us give that a chance to go through the system.

The government is unlike the Alberta government, which is proposing a huge increase in expenditures. Federal expenditures are at an all time low in relation to the GDP and we will continue with that fiscal prudence.

[The Economy, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has it all wrong, as usual. First, a report from economic forecasters today came out with the headline “Growth outlook sours for G-7, except Canada”.

The members opposite have talked about the asset value of Canadians. The national net worth rose 5.9% to $3.3 trillion in the year 2000. The member knows very well that the policy of the government is not to encourage a weak dollar.

[Alcoholic Beverage Labelling, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, if the member will recall, last fall the government indicated that it would provide some relief to Canadians for energy costs that were anticipated to rise quite significantly during the winter, which of course they did, and especially natural gas.

The government was then faced with the situation of getting relief out to Canadians, not next winter but this past winter because it was this past winter when we felt that natural gas prices in particular would be severe.

In terms of the instrument we used to get that relief to Canadians, the government was left with basically one instrument and that was to get the rebate out through the GST rebate. Those who were eligible for the GST rebate in 1999 received $125 per individual and $250 per household. Eleven million Canadians benefited from this program at a one time cost of $1.3 billion. I am sure the member did not read all the letters from those who received the cheques, but 11 million of them did.

The problem that was presented to the government was that looking at different alternatives involved a huge bureaucracy. Forms would have to be checked. People could say that they paid for their heat but then we would have to actually check it out. We would have had a huge bureaucracy. Of the $1.3 billion that was available, perhaps $700 million would actually go to the program needs and meeting the objectives for which we were striving.

The government did know that the method it used was not perfect. It had some risks. However, we are quite confident that it reached the vast majority of Canadians who were in need. Those who argue that they do not pay for their heat will eventually be charged for it by their landlords. I think we used the best instrument available to us to make sure Canadians got relief this past winter, not next winter.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member for Surrey Central along with his previous colleague made the argument that Canadians would not be very happy with the tax package because even though it was $100 billion it would complicate things. Of course even their own tax proposals do not uncomplicate things, as they have said in this Chamber.

While we all agree that tax simplification is perhaps a good objective, with respect, I believe the member is missing the point. Canadians do want tax relief. They embrace this tax relief, the largest tax relief package in the history of this country.

Then the member for Surrey Central, along with previous colleagues, argued that the tax relief package was really not $100 billion and was somewhat less. He argued, for example, that Canada pension plan increases should come off that amount. He and Canadians know that the Canada pension plan is an employee-employer based contribution pension scheme where Canadians are investing in their future retirement, health and well-being. It is not a tax. The premiums do not go to consolidated revenue. It never was a tax, never has been and never will be. He knows that is disingenuous at best.

He also argued that by reindexing the tax system that that was not a tax saving. I used some examples earlier. A one earner family with two children today is making $40,000. By the end of this tax relief package their federal tax burden will be reduced by 59%. That is 59% less federal income tax that they would pay compared with what they would have paid if this was not implemented. To say that cannot be counted as tax relief is absolutely incredible.

I would like to put this question to the member for Surrey Central. Leading up to this budget, Alliance members invariably stood up in the House and said that the Liberal government had increased taxes a multitude of times. We had not increased taxes at all. They were really saying that because we did not reindex the tax system we were effectively increasing the tax. I think that was their point. When asked to name the tax increases, they could not because taxes had not been increased.

How can they now claim that because we have reindexed the tax system, before it was a tax increase, but we cannot now say it is a tax decrease? Could the member explain that?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. I miss the kind of passion and energy that the previous member from that riding had. I find it strangely ironic that a member would stand up in the House and say that Canadians will not like $100 billion in tax cuts because it is going to complicate things.

I will go back to the flat tax or single rate tax. Of course what it did was shift the burden of tax from high income Canadians to middle income Canadians, and close to the election campaign the Alliance changed it to a 17%, 25% tax. We are not sure where it is going with its single rate tax but I am not sure anybody cares very much.

The member talked about complexity in the income tax system. We might all agree that the Income Tax Act is complex.

However if the Alliance Party were to introduce a flat tax or single rate tax, does that mean that all the various deductions such as RRSP, medical expenses over a certain amount, charitable donations in certain circumstances, et cetera would not apply, or would he simply have Canadians take a number and multiply it by 17 or 25?

A lot of Canadians think that might be the case, but many of the member's colleagues in the House said that it will not be that way. They said we would have all the same deductions because that was what Canadians wanted and expected. Could the member clarify that?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not sure if the member opposite has actually read the budget or the economic update but he seems to have missed a number of points.

Maybe I could start with some of them. The $100 billion tax cut announced in the economic update is the largest tax cut in Canadian history in dollar terms. Let me provide some examples.

The member opposite seemed to indicate that there is no real tax cuts or that they are minimal. Of course he mixes up, as the Alliance Party always does, the Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan is a contribution based program, an investment in the future. It consists of contributions from employers and employees, so it is not a tax at all and the member knows that. Of course the premiums do not go to consolidated revenue. Let me read an example:

A two-earner family of four has a combined income of $60,000. Last year they paid about $5,700 in federal income tax. Next year, their taxes will fall by over $1,000—a first year tax cut of 18 per cent. In less than four years their taxes will fall by 34 per cent.

In another example, a one-earner family with two children that makes $40,000 will see income taxes decline by 59% from what otherwise would have been paid in federal taxes, which I think is a pretty reasonable measure.

I am wondering if the member opposite realizes as well that by the end of June the CPP contributions will have maxed out, as we say, as will EI generally. Any small impact of the increase in the CPP will of course disappear at the end of June. In terms of net disposable income this will be a huge boost to Canadians. They will have more money in their pockets and more again in the years to follow.

I wonder if the member has actually calculated that and what that would mean to Canadians in a very positive way.

[Income Tax Act, April 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-209, introduced by the member for Jonquière.

Madam Speaker, the bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to permit individuals to deduct an undetermined percentage of their public transportation costs. These costs would include service by bus, subway, commuter train or light rail. To be eligible for a tax deduction, individuals would be required to provide supporting vouchers indicating the amounts paid for the use of an eligible public transportation system.

I should point out that the bill goes beyond or is different from what has been proposed by the Canadian Urban Transit Association. Notwithstanding that, this is an excellent initiative on behalf of the private member.

I will start by emphasizing that this government is very much committed to seeking ways to encourage more individuals to use public transportation systems in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, addressing climate change is a priority of our Opportunity for All agenda. Encouraging greater use of public transportation could certainly help us move toward this objective.

Regarding the specific option of a tax deduction for public transportation costs, I would point out that some important fairness and effectiveness considerations should be taken into account. Let me take a moment to explain some of the difficulties the bill raises.

First, it is not clear that this measure would result in the desired increases in the number of public transit users. The measure does not address the matter of new users and therefore we may imagine that it would be current users of public transport who would benefit the most from it.

We all know that the cost of public transit is often a small factor in an individual's transportation choice when weighed against other considerations such as accessibility, convenience and personal preference. Consequently, if the increase in ridership was small, there would be little benefit in terms of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

We must also consider the fairness of introducing a tax measure that would mostly benefit individuals residing in large urban centres with extensive public transit systems.

The inhabitants of smaller centres and rural areas, where accessible and convenient public transport is not always available, would not benefit from this measure.

It is for these reasons that the tax system generally does not make provision for individual costs, such as public transit costs, in particular.

If it did, it would be equivalent to asking Canadians in general to subsidize the personal expenses of other individuals. This would not be fair, as personal expenses vary widely across individuals and reflect to some extent the personal preference of the individual incurring them.

The government recognizes the importance of examining cost effective ways of encouraging energy efficiency and renewable energy. The government also believes that building on existing initiatives announced in recent budgets would likely achieve greater environmental benefits.

Let me also take this opportunity to explain some of the initiatives the government has already put in place to improve our environmental performance.

In budget 2000, the government allocated $700 million over a four year period to preserve and improve the natural environment, develop new technologies and effectively meet the challenges posed by climate change.

As part of this initiative, the government allocated $100 million to the establishment of a green municipal investment fund to provide loans in support of municipal projects in areas such as urban transit, energy conservation and waste diversion. An additional $100 million was also set aside for the establishment of a sustainable development technology fund to promote the development and demonstration of new environmental technologies, particularly those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the environmental initiatives announced in budget 2000, the government also earmarked an additional $210 million over three years for the climate change action fund, which was set up in the 1998 budget to help Canada respect its international commitments on climate change.

Eligible initiatives under this program include those that demonstrate the best urban transportation technologies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In building on these investments, in our economic statement and budget update of October 18, 2000, the government allocated an additional $500 million over five years to address key environmental challenges such as climate change and pollution.

If we take into account the new environmental initiatives of $700 million in budget 2000, the government's investment in environmental measures in the year 2000 totalled $1.2 billion.

The government also indicated in the 2000 budget that it would be consulting with other orders of government and the private sector to reach an agreement on a creative and fiscally responsible plan to improve provincial and municipal infrastructure in Canada's communities. The federal government has allocated upward of $2.6 billion to this initiative over the next five years. Urban transit projects will be an essential component of this joint effort.

In conclusion, I am sure that all hon. members present today share, like myself, a very strong commitment to encourage greater use of public transportation systems in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, in light of what I have discussed, I hope hon. members also realize that providing a tax deduction for public transportation costs may not be the appropriate measure to achieve this outcome.

[Tax Agreements, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, our position is very clear, as are the positions of the Minister of Finance.

We are on the leading edge. We are involved with the OECD and many countries to eliminate harmful tax competition. We have tough money laundering legislation that passed the House and the Senate. We are on the leading edge of these discussions.

We want to make sure, though, that the process is transparent and fair before we list countries that are not involved in harmful tax competition. The Minister of Finance is leading this charge and we will get to the root of the problem to try to resolve it.

[Tax Agreements, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth in what the member said here today.

The finance minister and the federal government have been on the leading edge of an OECD initiative that is trying to eliminate harmful tax competition. We also introduced some of the toughest money laundering legislation in parliament last year.

The finance minister is absolutely convinced that we need to have a transparent and fair process, but we also want to eliminate harmful tax competition, make it more transparent, cut down on secrecy and attack those countries that are harbouring tax evaders.

[Income Tax Act, April 3rd, 2001]

I'm not.