House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 54% of the vote.
Taxation May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the hon. member's supplementary question. As members of the committee, his colleagues were with us on the road when Canadians said this is what they wanted to see, harmonized taxes, not two sales taxes in this country.
He talks about Doug Henning the magician. A more appropriate analogy for him is King Canute trying to roll back the waves.
Taxation May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, because he has asked questions before about the formula of adjustment assistance, that it provides assistance to provinces that incur losses in excess of 5 per cent of their tax revenue under their existing PST. That formula applies across the country. That is the formula which has been applied in Atlantic Canada. It would result in adjustment assistance to some provinces and not others. It is a consistent formula.
Taxation May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question which we have heard over and over again. Maybe at some point members will hear loud and clear that what we have done is good for Canadians, good for consumers. The Atlantic provinces realize and businesses throughout the Atlantic provinces realize that a national harmonized tax as we proposed and as is being implemented is good for Canadians.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce raises an important question.
On April 23 the Minister of Finance introduced over 100 measures to streamline the operation of the GST. One important simplification was the elimination of the notional input tax credits and the introduction of a change in approach for used goods.
The credit allowed dealers to claim 7/107ths of the price they paid for used goods. It was assumed that the full credit was passed on to consumers. However many consumers felt that this was not always the case.
The notional input tax credit system was criticized for being overly complex and susceptible to abuse. The tax will now be applied on the net difference in price when a consumer trades in a used good as partial payment for another good.
The new system for trade-ins is easier to understand and limits tax compounding. The new rules came into effect immediately so that consumers would not delay making decisions on the trade in and purchase of automobiles. Such a delay may have led to revenue losses during any transition period for businesses in this sector. Delaying implementation may have also led to further fraudulent activity.
In further response to the member's comments with respect to harmonization, he is absolutely right. A move toward harmonization in all provinces in this country will help to alleviate and eliminate the sort of problems he outlined.
Canadian Human Rights Act May 7th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to rise today to speak in support of this measure.
Bill C-33 will add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Introducing and passing this bill, which I look forward to with so many of my colleagues, will fulfil a longstanding commitment of the Liberal Party that goes back many years. It is consistent with countless resolutions of this great Liberal Party and it has overwhelming support within this Parliament and across this great land.
The Liberal Party that I joined 20 years ago was a party noted for its defence of human rights and its advocacy on behalf of minorities. I am proud that the day has arrived where we are debating this measure which is long overdue.
The bill does not take anything away from anyone else. It does not create special status but it responds to a reality. Gays and lesbians are discriminated against in our society because of what they are.
I guess as a Jew I have a special sensitivity to other minorities because of my people's history. The Jewish people have known discrimination, persecution and worse in this century and throughout the centuries, too often simply because of who they are or what they are perceived to be. I attach great significance to what we are doing here today. I think Jews have a special responsibility to stand up in support of a human rights measure such as this.
I am very pleased that the two principal organizations which speak for the Jewish community, namely B'nai Brith Canada with its fine record in defence of human rights with the fine work of the League of Human Rights and the Canadian Jewish Congress with its fine work as well in this field. They both stand strongly behind the government's efforts in amending the human rights act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
There are other parallels perhaps to the experience of the Jewish people that may be missed by some of my colleagues.
Perhaps some of us have a special sensitivity, but I get concerned when I hear people in this great country-our brothers, our sisters, our friends, our acquaintances-referred to in ways that make them seem as outsiders. Those kinds of words have a dehumanizing effect.
Eli Weisel said it so eloquently and it is a lesson for all of us. "The holocaust began with words". I would rather be part of a party, part of a government that uses words to enrich, to enlighten, to inform and to defend than to use words to tear down, to attack, to isolate, to denigrate.
Some people have said that this provision threatens the family. It does no such thing. Some say that gays and lesbians or their lifestyles attack and undermine the family. I want to pause to speak about a couple that came to see me in my office recently, a mother and father roughly the age of my parents. They spoke about a child of theirs who is gay. The pain I saw in the father's eyes when I first met him was not pain over this child and his situation but rather the pain in knowing there were other Canadians who would want to treat his son differently because of it.
When we speak about what might happen to the family as a result what is being suggested this bill gives rise to, we are overlooking the hurt that is causing in families. Let us remember who we are talking about. We are talking about people. We are talking about individuals. We are talking about human beings. We are not talking about some mysterious person out there who we do not know. We are talking about friends, colleagues, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They have families too.
There is not much more to say. This is a very important matter. I look forward to hearing the interventions of other colleagues, although some may disagree.
Gays and lesbians have not asked us to recognize them, as some have suggested in this House. Recognition is not something that we bestow or take away. Gays and lesbians have their own dignity. All they ask from the government and what it will provide is recognition of their right to equality under the laws of this country.
The Constitution Act, 1996 May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-213.
The hon. member's proposals at best reflect, as he admitted, a fundamental mistrust of the parliamentary system and the Canadian public, doubts I do not share. At worst, they amount to fiscal foolishness.
This bill is really the Reform Party's zero in three budget in disguise.
On February 21, 1995, the leader of the Reform Party presented what was called the taxpayers' budget, the Reform Party's strategy to eliminate the federal deficit in three years.
The public did not accept it. In fact, the Reform Party has stopped making proposals in view of the response they have received.
So, here we are today before a desperate attempt to revive this failed budget in the form of a private member's bill.
The Reform Party's slash and burn taxpayers' budget paid no regard to the consequences of the actions it proposed. If one is willing to institute mindless cuts, a favourite Reform strategy, indeed one can achieve short term savings and a balanced budget, but only if one believes in substituting decisiveness for thoughtfulness and fairness.
The hon. member's proposed bill would surely result in substantial long term costs. The proposed fiscal straitjacket could mean gutting social programs, leaving the vulnerable in society to fend for themselves.
It could mean cutting assistance programs without giving Canadians the tools to help them get back to work. It could mean eliminating tax preferences for small businesses which over the long run would result in less innovation, fewer companies and less employment. When one's only tool is a hammer, everything one sees looks like a nail. That would be the effect of this bill.
In short, the member's strategy would be more hardship, a weaker economy and much greater spending pressures in the end, sabotaging the very goal of his legislation.
The proposed private member's bill would put the government and the economy into a straitjacket. To meet its balanced budget goal would require that taxes be raised and spending be cut during a recession, rather than allowing the automatic stabilizers built into the tax system to work. The legislation would force government to make any recession worse because it would not be allowed to take action to assist Canadians.
The Reform Party, the hon. member, and the government have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government. Canadians want a government that has the flexibility to act and to tailor its actions to meet the circumstances of the day. Canadians will not be fooled. The Reform Party goal, reflected in the hon. member's bill remains what always has been, to emasculate government as an end in itself. Canadians do not want a government that stands aside. Canadians want a government ready and able to stand alongside them.
This legislation would put controls on total government expenditures without any regard to whether these spending pressures came from national or international developments, from developments over which the government has little or no control.
Does the hon. member believe Canadians want to see their government respond, for instance, to interest rate swings by immediately slashing elderly benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, transfers to the provinces for medicare and social assistance? That is not what Canadians want and that is not the policy actions of a responsible government.
Perhaps the hon. member is under the mistaken impression that because the United States has balanced budget legislation, Canada too should have the same. There is a bit of faddishness to what is going on here. Let me remind the hon. member that our systems of government, as he well knows, are quite different.
In the United States, the executive branch, the president and cabinet, is separate from congress. Both prepare budget plans on which consensus must ultimately be achieved. That consensus is difficult to arrive at. Balanced budget legislation proposals came about in the United States because of a lack of consensus among legislators and the executive.
In Canada, there is no similar distinction between the branches of government. Parliament is ultimately responsible and accountable.
In 1991, the sponsor of this bill claimed, in a document entitled constitutional limits on public spending and Canada's deficit, that in practice deficits could not be prohibited, quite simply. It was also not desirable to do so for reasons of economic efficiency.
I suppose if it were true then, it is still true now. We have no need for this type of legislation. The ultimate aim of this government is a balanced budget. We have come up with a balanced and fair strategy to achieve this end.
The hon. member and his colleagues have a fundamental mistrust of government. But we are proving every day that a govern-
ment can be fiscally responsible and do it in a way that does not gut the country in the process.
It has set two-year rolling deficit targets and it is committed to achieving them. It is accountable to the Canadian people year after year in meeting those targets and at every election we are ready to be judged.
To date, the government has bettered the targets it has set and it will continue to meet its future targets for a number of reasons. First, for budget making purposes it is using economic assumptions that are more prudent than the private sector average.
Second, it has built into its fiscal targets a contingency reserve which provides an extra measure of back-up against errors and economic planning assumptions. The proposed bill calls for a contingency reserve to be put in the legislation. There is no need to. It is already included in the fiscal plan.
Finally, the government is undertaking fundamental reforms to provide for a stronger economy which in turn will lead to lower deficits.
In closing, I would like only to say that there is no need for this proposed bill. The member's proposal would amount to a triumph of dogma over good sense. The government's finances are on track. It is pursuing a deficit reduction strategy that is measured, deliberate and responsible. I urge members of the House to reject Bill C-213.
Goods And Services Tax May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it has everything to do with good policy and it is good for the country.
I do not recall the hon. member suggesting that fishermen were bribed or that western grain producers were bribed. This is how we do things in this country. We are implementing a national value added harmonized tax. It is good for the Atlantic provinces and it is good for Canada.
Goods And Services Tax May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has asked that question. It gives me a chance to remind the hon. member that on numerous occasions when we have had structural adjustment the government has responded with assistance to those regions that require it. That is what is taking place in the implementation of the national harmonized value added tax in the Atlantic provinces.
I will repeat again what the member and others in his party have heard time and time again. It is worth repeating one more time in the hopes that they will absorb it this time. It is going to be an enormous improvement for those Atlantic provinces. We are sharing the cost of adjustment with those provinces, consistent with what we have done for instance out west in western grain payments to grain producers when we ended the Crow rate subsidy.
I do not recall-
Goods And Services Tax May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to be a member of the finance committee which travelled across the country for the consultations with respect to the GST. I was accompanied by members of her party and of the third party.
We heard Canadians, we consulted with Canadians and we responded with a package of changes and a harmonized national value added tax. We listened to Canadians. We did what they asked us to do and it is consistent with our red book commitments.
Criminal Code May 1st, 1996
Madam Speaker, I will avoid the temptation to do anything other than answer the question that I thought was asked and use the time to respond to that question as is intended to be the case at this hour in the House. Let me begin by reminding the House what the Minister of Finance said in his statement on sales tax harmonization on April 23.
Anyone who believes that business in this country does not pass on provincial sales taxes to the consumer is simply naive. Consumers are already paying for the imposition of retail sales tax on business inputs in the form of higher prices. Because of reduced competitiveness for Canadian products in both domestic and international markets as a result of those higher prices, consumers are also paying in the form of fewer jobs and lower wages. There will therefore be no shift in tax burden from business to consumers under harmonization. Canadian consumers are already bearing these costs in one way or another.
In fact, consumers will benefit from harmonization. Competitive market conditions will ensure that businesses pass on the tax savings under a harmonized valued added tax to consumers. This will result in a decline in price on most goods and services they buy. In combination with the lower sales tax rate in harmonized provinces, these price declines will result in lower after tax consumer prices on many purchases and substantial overall sales tax savings to families and individuals.
Removing sales tax from business inputs will also enhance the competitiveness of Canadian goods and services when competing with foreign suppliers in international markets and at home which will benefit individual Canadians through higher and more stable employment and income levels.
Moreover, harmonization will lead to an additional benefit to business and consumers, reduced complexity and tax compliance costs. For business, harmonization will mean one sales tax not two, one tax base not two, one tax rate not two, and one sales tax administration not two.
These savings will be substantial. As much as $700 million in annual sales tax compliance costs will disappear under harmonization on a national basis according to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Like the tax savings which businesses will receive under harmonization, these savings will also lead to lower consumer prices and increased economic competitiveness in harmonizing provinces.
The only real consumer costs associated with this issue are those imposed on Canadians in non-harmonizing provinces by governments which continue to cling to inefficient and uncompetitive retail sales tax systems.