Ed Harper

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member. I was certainly pleased to hear that there are volunteers running the artefacts museum in her riding. That is wonderful. We need more volunteers working in our communities.

I do not buy the premise that we have to offer tax credits in order to get these works of art these different paintings and sculptures to remain in Canada. I believe there are many Canadians who have done well in businesses in Canada who are prepared to make those

donations tax free without any tax credits. The government is making the assumption that we have to do this to encourage it and I do not believe that.

We certainly cannot and should not be doing it at this time in our history when we are in the financial mess we are in. We just do not have the dollars to throw away in the form of tax credits to the very wealthy in this country.

[Cultural Property Export And Import Act, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon and participate in this debate on Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.

What we are talking about is tax fairness. Fairness is something all Canadians are really looking for today, fairness in their tax system. I hear members opposite talking about the red book and talking about the green book. The only book that is really important and the one we are concerned about for Canadians is the bank book. Canadian bank books are paying for all these open ended and over generous tax credits. We are talking about $60 million in tax credits; $60 million in unfairness that is actually not in the system at the moment.

I am a Rotarian and Rotarians have a four way test. These tests apply to all the things we do and say. One of those tests is: Is it fair to all concerned? Bill C-93 misses the mark about being fair to all concerned by a very wide margin. It is unfair to the average income Canadian taxpayer who is overtaxed, has no paintings or sculptures in his or her home and he or she is the least able to pay the tax burden he or she is presently under.

It does benefit the very wealthy, the very rich in our society who have the art works and who have the sculptures and who have the ability to pay. Here we are subsidizing them. Those who have the sculptures, those who have the art works also have the bucks and are not deserving of the overly generous tax credits we are talking about in Bill C-93.

We should be looking for tax relief for the average taxpayer. I hear lots on the other side about their ability to deal with numbers, how good they are with numbers. I wonder about that when I see we are rushing toward bankruptcy, $550 billion to $560 billion in federal debt, and deeper every day, and then sleep walking to bankruptcy. I do not know where all the experts in numbers are but they sure do not know how to balance the books very well. We are still spending in excess of $35 billion more than we are taking in. They had better reclassify their experts. They are failing the mark there.

In Bill C-93 we are missing the mark in three areas when I talk about fairness. Bill C-93 introduces two new levels of appeal. There is more bureaucracy and more costs. On the second point there are tax credits for charities that are treated differently than the tax credits for the rich who have their works of art. That is grossly

unfair. The third is it is an open ended system with tax loopholes a mile wide for those with the money and ability to look for them.

Let us take the first one where we are introducing two new levels of appeal. Prior to 1990 Revenue Canada decided the value. That was the way it should have been. After the 1990 budget the Canadian cultural export review board was brought into being with no appeal, or at least no appeal without reason.

Today Bill C-93 adds two steps to that. We now can have an appeal without a reason. We do not need a reason for an appeal. I cannot understand the logic of that but we can appeal without a reason. Perhaps someone over there can explain that to me.

Then there is an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada-more delay, more bureaucracy and more cost. In the end we have taken it right back to where we were in 1990 where the tax department makes the final decision. What have we accomplished other than more delay and more costs to the taxpayer who is footing the bill?

These appeals will escalate the cost. Take the scenario in which I have a piece of art in my home. I would be lucky to have a piece of art worth $1 million. I say it is worth $1 million. The review people take a look at it and say it is only worth $.5 million. What do we do for the next step? We go to the tax court. Judges being what they are will say they will meet me half way and it ends up being worth $.75 million. Who is the winner there? It is not the overtaxed taxpayer.

Let us look at the tax credits to charities. The limit is 20 per cent of net taxable income. It is money going to food banks and the Salvation Army, money to help those really in need and we have a limit on it. They are crying for help. They are under constraints from the government. No, it is a 20 per cent limit. That money goes to charities to help people really in need.

Now we look at works of art donated by the rich and the wealthy of this community and there is no limit. The government will give them whatever they want. It is all right. It is a blank cheque. It makes no sense at all. It is grossly unfair. It is Liberal mathematics. The number crunchers have come up with this and the deficit will increase, the debt will increase and our tax burden will increase.

It is an open ended system. I do not think there are any qualifiers. They can keep dumping art on us until the warehouses are full. There is no regulation which say we can only take so much or we have only so much money to put into this. It keeps increasing and we will keep putting it into warehouses. It might eventually find its way into museums. I would certainly hope so when we are spending $16 million a year and it is increasing. It seems to be acquisition for acquisition's sake.

Is this bill fair? Is Bill C-93 fair to all concerned? I am not just talking about the artsy-fartsy; I am talking about the hard working taxpayers who are paying for all of this art which they rarely ever get to see. It is only fair to the top 1 per cent of our community. It is grossly unfair to 99 per cent of our overtaxed taxpayers. It is unfair to the charities looking for relief. They are looking for help and for donations from Canadians. Art donations have a higher priority with the government than does the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is helping those in need and those looking for assistance.

To say that if we defeat the bill it will be the end of art donations is rubbish. They will not stop, they will continue. We are not the ones out to destroy the cultural community, but we will not buy it with money we do not have and give it to people who do not need it.

If we defeat the bill it will close a very big loophole of which the very rich in the community can take advantage. That is wrong. The ordinary taxpayer is incensed by it and wants something done about it.

Let us do what is right for the majority of hard working, overtaxed Canadians who have no loopholes, just empty pockets. Let us be fair to all taxpayers and defeat Bill C-93.

[Petitions, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two petitions today.

The first group of petitioners is extremely concerned about including the phrase sexual orientation in federal legislation. They believe this sets a very dangerous precedent for society.

The second group of petitioners requests that the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married couples.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the final group of petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.

The petitioners are troubled about defining the phrase sexual orientation. They have a legitimate concern-

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition involves section 718.2 of Bill C-41.

The petitioners are concerned that naming some groups in legislation will exclude other groups from protection and that sentencing based on the concept of hatred is very subjective and will undermine our justice system.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.

The first petition concerns the use of an illegal defence that has become known as the drunk defence. The petitioners believe that in committing the act of choosing to consume alcohol the individual must also accept all the responsibility for their actions while under the influence.

[Old Age Security Act, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-54, an act to amend several social programs, including the Canada pension plan.

Tonight I would like to speak in some detail about the Canada pension plan, the amendments proposed to it in the bill, and more generally about the policy direction of the Liberal government and the minister on CPP.

The bill is nothing more than administrative housekeeping. It is designed to improve minor flaws in the current system, but it ignores, as the government has ignored, the very severe problems our social programs face.

The Canada pension plan is a nightmare. The unfunded liabilities of the plan rival our national debt. Those liabilities were estimated to be $491 billion in 1993. That is $491 billion that must either be taxed from future generations, our children and our grandchildren, or it may mean that seniors will have to forgo some of their benefits. Neither scenario is pleasant.

The Superintendent of Financial Institutions reported in February that CPP will be out of funds in just 20 years. Realistically, we have very little time to act to correct the situation. We have been here a year and a half, yet the Liberal government has offered us only a bill written by the bureaucracy for the bureaucracy.

In the past year CPP ran its first deficit, seemingly a small amount in comparison to the many billions of dollars of benefits paid out. The government dipped into the contingency fund for $650 million.

Suddenly the bureaucracy woke up. Even though the contingency fund is over $40 billion, the not so astute central planners had invested all the funds in 20-year loans to the provinces with low interest. As anyone can see, this means that only approximately $2 billion is actually liquid in any given year. Therefore, last year panic set in as human resources development bureaucrats suddenly realized that one-third of the available cash in the contingency fund was going to be used up meeting benefit obligations.

The story does not end here, however. Benefit payouts are projected to increase faster than premiums can be collected. In the next few years we may face a crisis as deficits climb past the point of sustainability. Change must come quickly if we are to preserve the integrity of the social programs for those who depend on them.

Many Canadians are confused about the reasons the Canada pension plan is not financially sustainable. It is really quite simple. Unlike private pension plans or other savings plans, the premiums paid are not invested and then returned to the individual with interest upon retirement. Rather, the premiums paid are used to fund current beneficiaries, with a small portion going to the contingency fund. This would not be a totally unreasonable situation if the demographics of the population never changed. Canada has an aging population. An increasingly higher percentage of the population depends on CPP for their retirement. Correspondingly, a lower percentage of Canadians are left in the workforce to fund the retirees. This situation will only worsen as the baby boom generation reaches retirement age.

If members think this plan sounds irresponsible, I agree with them. I imagine that most members on that side of the House have no problem with this. After all, the Liberals have done exactly the same thing with their budget. They overspend today, taking on debt that future generations will have to pay back. They force future generations to pay for this generation. Some might even call this financial abuse of children.

The Canada pension plan is no different. Today's working mothers and fathers are directly subsidizing today's retirees, and our children and grandchildren will be forced to subsidize us. Based on the current projections there will be no CPP for my children and grandchildren. It will only exist for this self-serving generation. Serious reforms are necessary and are needed immediately to fix this problem. However, we have a lack of leadership from this government.

There are some good improvements proposed in Bill C-54 for the Canada pension plan. There is some streamlining of the appeals process, a possible reduction in overpayments to recipients. There is simplification in the delegation of authority, simplification of the division, reinstatement and assignment of benefits. These are good and worthy benefits to be approved by this House. It will help Canadians and reduce a few costs, but it fails to deal with the most important aspect of pension reform. It fails to deal with the imminent bankruptcy of the system.

What good are administrative reforms like those in Bill C-54 if the whole system goes bankrupt? It does not make any difference how quickly a pensioner receives his cheque if the amount is zero dollars and zero cents. The government of the day would probably wish its system were not quite so efficient if it is going to be sending out cheques like that. This bill represents a baby step when a giant leap was needed.

The priority of this government should be to put CPP on a firm financial footing. A proposal the government seems to keep floating is that premiums should continually increase to fund deficits in the plan. This is plainly unacceptable to a large majority of Canadians. It is no different from increasing taxes, and Canadians have said they are taxed to the limit.

Another suggestion is to cut benefits. There may be some savings to be found in the myriad of benefits paid out, as I will point out in a minute, but these savings will not fundamentally alter the main problem, which is that the plan is actuarily unsound.

We plainly cannot cut benefits to those retirees who currently depend on them, and it would be cruel to cut them significantly for those who are about to retire. The only persons we can cut future benefits for are those who have enough time left before retirement to make alternate arrangements.

I would like to tell of two different constituents of mine who have come to me with stories of problems they have experienced with CPP. The first constituent complained to me about waste in the survivors benefits category, commonly known as widows and orphans benefits. My constituent was concerned that after marrying a widowed woman and adopting her two children the survivors benefits continued to flow. He had to pursue his case through the department all the way up to the minister to get the benefits cut off.

Why is this unacceptable situation continuing to the present day? Clearly if one is no longer a widow or an orphan they should no longer collect a widow's or orphan's benefit. Savings to be found in this area may be in the millions of dollars.

Another constituent complained to me about the overly high benefit payout she is receiving from CPP for her retirement. This constituent had paid in a grand total of $143 in premiums over her lifetime, yet is receiving monthly benefit cheques of $25. Although $25 a month or $300 a year does not seem to be an amount that will bankrupt the plan, think what overpaying many other Canadians hundreds or thousands of dollars a year does to our balances. It is unsustainable and cannot be justified. We must make the plan actuarially sound and financially stable for those who have to depend on it.

The Reform Party has promised to be a constructive alternative in Parliament, and on this issue, like most others, we have laid out our plan. We believe that our approach must be financially sustainable, fair, promote individual responsibility, and must help relieve government of its massive fiscal problems.

We believe that the registered personal savings plans coupled with registered retirement savings plans are a large part of the solution for Canada's working generation. We laid out our plan in our taxpayers' budget prior to the release of the federal budget. We detailed how Canadians would be encouraged to plan for their own retirement without government interference or financial bungling. We showed how individuals could make choices that best suit their needs and we showed how it could be done without incurring additional liabilities for the government.

Reformers demonstrated leadership in the area of pensions and the Liberals have yet to move on the issue. Yet it is the Liberals who have the power to effect the changes necessary to save these programs. If the Liberals refuse to act then I believe the Canadian people will choose leaders who will bring the needed reform, and I believe they will choose Reformers to do that job.

In closing, I want to read the comments of another member from another debate on a similar bill from the last Parliament, which only tinkered with the Canada Pension Plan and failed to effect any meaningful change. I quote:

"I simply want to use this opportunity to draw the attention of members and hopefully of the government or a future government to the fact that the reform of the pension plan system has to go beyond just tinkering, fixing some immediate problems. We may have to come to grips with a lower level of pension benefits that will be available as each generation of Canadians reaches retirement age. I would suggest that the problem is that we should be projecting the profile of what our Canadian population will look like 10, 15, 20 years down the road and designing our CPP to meet that problem so that future legislators will not have to scramble to face a much broader problem or large scale insecurity because we at the present time did not exercise our responsibility of stewardship to make sure that there would be enough of a benefit base to satisfy those needs. Similarly, I also find it of concern that the number of real problems that have been identified in the implementation and administration of the Canada Pension Plan are not being fully addressed in this bill."

The comments were made by none other than the author of this present tinkering bill, the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The leadership and changes the Canadian voters are so desperately looking for will have to wait until the next federal election, when Reform will form the government.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the last grouping of amendments on Bill C-91, Motions Nos. 12 and 13.

I am very much impressed by the comments of the member for Broadview-Greenwood about his dedication to small business and the government's dedication to helping small business. I hope the sincerity and dedication extend beyond access to funding.

There are many other important areas that are really big factors to small businesses. Certainly they are looking for relief from the tax burden they are under and their customers are under. It is number one on their list, as well as the government bureaucracy that is on their backs. These are two areas we have to address to encourage not only new businesses but small businesses to expand and grow as we know we need them to do.

The Reform Party will be opposing both Motions Nos. 12 and 13 because they remove some restrictions from the bill that we feel are important and should remain in there.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments to Bill C-91 we are addressing this evening. I am pleased to do this because of my small business background.

As a small businessman for many years I had many sleepless nights looking for capital. Therefore I am very hopeful that the changes we are attempting to make to this bill will improve the access to capital for those new small businesses starting up.

The amount of time spent on the correct name bothers me to some degree. I do not think the name is all that important. What is in the bill is important to small businesses which we are trying to help.

I was interested in some of the comments coming from my colleagues in the Bloc, particularly the member for Longueuil when said he had been in business in Quebec and found that Quebec businessmen had to work twice as hard as the businessmen in Ontario. I had a little trouble with that because I challenge anybody to have worked twice as hard as I did in my business. If one is to be successful in small business today one must work hard.

In my business, the tire and automotive service business, I had occasion to come in contact with people in the same business in Quebec. At no time did I get from them that they were working or attempting to work twice as hard as I was. Those in business in Quebec I came in contact with were doing very well because they were working hard. That was the secret.

I listened to the comments about the FBDB and what is happening in Quebec. I look at the 1994 annual report from the FBDB and see that some 23 per cent of its portfolio is in Quebec. Its head office is there as well. At some point during the debate earlier I was wondering if the scenario was that people were being forced at gun point to borrow from the FBDB. It is not compulsory. If businesses want to go there they go on their own volition, as it should be.

I will briefly run through the amendments in group 2 and outline Reform's position on them. The first is Motion No. 7. Reform is opposing this motion because the term financial assistance is too broad, too sweeping and too general in terms.

When I read that I thought I would have really appreciated, when I went to my bank for funding, that I could say I wanted financial assistance and the bank manager would have been prepared to take it on that basis. Whenever I asked for financial assistance, the next question was how much financial assistance. The decision was then made on that. Therefore we feel it is too sweeping and we will be opposing Motion No. 7.

Motion No. 8 deals with limiting the bank's ability to go to $18 billion rather than $23 billion as is in the bill now. We think there should be a limit there. In our estimation the limit should be $18 billion. We will be supporting Motion No. 8

We are opposing Motion No. 9. The mandate of the bank in our opinion is still not satisfactorily defined.

On Motion No. 10, a Reform motion by the member for Edmonton South, we will be supporting it because it eliminates loans to crown corporations. I do not know whether that was anticipated or thought of at the time but it might appear to the public as a form of double dipping. We will be supporting the amendment to eliminate loans to crown corporations.

Motion No. 11 restricts the role of the bank to complementary activities not already provided by the private sector. We will be supporting Motion No. 11.

Moving into the grouping of Motions Nos. 14 and 15, Motion No. 14 we feel removes some restrictions we feel are necessary in the bill. We will be opposing the removal of those sections.

Motion No. 15 is also a Reform motion and we will be supporting it. It ensures the bank is not active in trust, insurance or security companies.

Motion No. 19 is proposed by the Bloc. We will be opposing it. Yield of hybrid instruments will reflect the profit and cost of borrowing.

Motion No. 20, a Bloc motion, does not change the potential for conflict. It refers only to disclosure. We do not feel it covers that and we will be opposing it.

Motion No. 21, a Reform motion which we will be supporting, refers to the conflict of interest that changes the requirement from disclosing conflict to not doing any business with an interested person.

Motion No. 22, a Reform motion, will be supported and I see it was adopted at committee stage. Motion No. 21, a Bloc motion, we will be opposing because the motion appears to be unnecessary in our estimation. Motion No. 24 we will be opposing for the same reasons as were outlined on Motion No. 1; because it refers to the name change.

Motion No. 25 requires a definition of a hybrid capital instrument be included in the bill. Reform put forward this motion and we will be supporting it.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is on the subject of sexual orientation. The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation.

The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and privileges as married people.