Bryon Wilfert

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address hon. members with regard to this private member's motion, Motion No. 326, which proposes:

That the government consider the advisability of increasing the pension accrual rate for firefighters to allow them to retire with adequate financial provisions for their retirement.

I had a fairly lengthy speech but I will shorten it considerably.

[Tax Credit, May 1st, 2002]

I hope the member is not going to heckle throughout my response. Since I listened to him, I would hope he would listen to my comments. However I know the Chair will keep an eye on him.

In the 1998 budget we also opened the education credit to part time students. We made it possible for unused tuition and education amounts to be carried forward into future tax years.

These measures are quite generous. The tuition and education credits alone provide over $1 billion in tax assistance to some 1.4 million students each year. Largely because of these credits, 80% of full time students pay no tax at all while they are studying.

Not only are these measures generous but they are fairer than the credit proposed by the hon. member. The existing credits apply to all students, not just the ones who use the Canada student loans to finance their studies. Students who take part time work instead of borrowing also benefit.

As a final comment on the member's motion, I share the member's desire to encourage our graduates to stay in Canada. A graduate's decision about where to work after school is complex and money is no doubt an important factor in that decision.

As a former educator, I am particularly interested in the debate and in the comments that all colleagues will be making with regard to the motion.

Would the member's proposal actually encourage graduates to stay? I doubt it. Here is why. For someone with a $20,000 student loan, this measure would be worth about $320 per year. Surely this amount is far too small to sway a graduate's career choices.

In my view, the government is taking the better path. Our measures to promote research, innovation and excellence, and to reduce the tax burden represent a fairer and more effective way to attract and keep talent in Canada.

I have already pointed to some highlights in the government's record on support for post-secondary education. I would like to share some other examples that clearly show the government's commitment.

In the 1998 budget we launched the Canadian opportunities strategy. The strategy introduced several important measures, like the $2.5 billion millennium scholarship program. The program awards over 90,000 scholarships every year to post-secondary students on the basis of their financial needs. The average scholarship is $3,000. That was just a start.

In the 1998 budget we introduced a credit for the interest portion of student loan repayments. We strengthened support for advanced research. We introduced the Canada education savings grant to encourage families to save for their children's education. We introduced a Canada study grants for students with exceptional financing needs. I could go on.

Since then, we have not been content to simply rest on our laurels. We have continued to find ways to make post-secondary education more affordable and accessible for more Canadians.

In 2000, for example, we increased the amount of scholarships and bursaries that are exempt from income by a factor of six.

I should also mention the changes we made to the Canada student loans program. This program is a cornerstone of Canada's system of support to post-secondary education students. It provides essential financial aid to some 400,000 Canadians. And we have taken steps to make it stronger.

Before I explain these changes, I first want to discuss some comments made by the hon. member. In his press release, he stated that the credit would lessen the debt burden faced by Canadian students.

Debt burden is an issue for some but, thankfully, most graduates can manage their student debt. This is no surprise. A post-secondary education is probably the best investment one can make. It means better job prospects and better pay. For example, for someone with a post-secondary degree the likelihood of being unemployed five years after graduation is one-third of the general youth unemployment rate.

As I said before, debt burden is an issue for some. That is why the government has taken significant action to make student debtloads more manageable. Now graduates who have difficulty repaying their loans can apply for various relief measures.

The relief period, before interest starts to accumulate on their loans, can be extended by up to 54 months. Their loan repayments can be extended from 10 to 15 years. After that, if they are still having financial difficulties, they can apply to have their debt reduced. The relief that we have put in place is efficient and fair.

We will continue looking for ways to do more.

Just last February the government launched two papers on Canada's innovation strategy. In those papers we reinforced our strong commitment to learning. We proposed an ambitious national goal: to ensure that all qualified Canadians have access to high quality post-secondary education. This national dialogue is an important step toward building a stronger future for Canada and for Canadians.

In closing I would like to reiterate that the government has a better approach to helping students with the cost of post-secondary education. Our approach is also fairer. It not only assists those who use Canada student loans to finance their education, it also assists those who rely on other means, such as part-time work.

If our objective is to attract and keep the best and the brightest, then I would suggest that the best way is to focus on creating more opportunity in Canada. We will do this through our strategy to promote innovation and excellence.

For those reasons, I would urge hon. members not to support the motion. However I do commend the member, in spite of some of his heckling, for putting this issue on the floor. It is an appropriate venue for us to discuss it. I am looking forward to hearing the comments from members of other parties and from my colleagues on this side of the House. As I said before, we are always looking at innovative approaches.

[Tax Credit, May 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion put forward by the member for Fundy--Royal. The motion asks the government to consider introducing a new tax credit for students.

The credit would be for repayments of the principal of a graduates' Canada student loans. Each year, for 10 years after graduation, the graduate could claim a credit on the principal that he or she repays.

The member would limit this credit to 10% of the principal per year and would limit it to graduates who stay in Canada. In other words, graduates who stay in Canada would receive a credit for the full loan repayment over the 10 years following graduation.

Let me say at the outset that the member's objectives are laudable. In the new economy, supporting post-secondary education and post-secondary students must be a priority.

The government has taken action on several fronts to help students with the cost of education. However I must take this opportunity to raise some concerns about the member's motion.

Foremost, I want to tell the members of the House that there is a better way to help students with the cost of post-secondary education, and we are already doing it.

Today we have a tuition tax credit that recognizes tuition costs. We have an education tax credit that recognizes non-tuition costs of education, such as the purchase of textbooks.

Starting in 2001, we doubled the monthly education amounts to $400 for full time students and $120 for part time students. In fact we have increased the full time education credit fivefold since 1985.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Bloc again do not seem to get it. They do not seem to understand what the bill contains. Some misrepresentations were obviously made in the House today by the hon. member. There is no question that we are talking about legislative and administrative changes to the bill.

The member opposite clearly has failed again to understand that these are legislative and administrative changes. The member again has failed to understand that beer is not part of the bill. The rationale was very clear that the issues were very different.

Bill C-47 deals with spirits, wine, tobacco and ships' stores. This has been the case from the beginning when the bill was tabled in December 2001.

The comments made by the member with regard to the chair have already been addressed. We will not go into that. It is utter nonsense and he knows it. Obviously I am not sure what the motivation is on the other side. Clearly the issue at hand is that we as a government are interested in bringing in a new excise act to deal with the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco products.

It was clear in the 1997 report that we engaged the industry, the provinces and all stakeholders and they gave us very clear messages about moving forward. That is in fact what we have been doing. It is somewhat distressing to hear the sideshow comments which have absolutely nothing to do with the bill at hand which deflect from the fact that the member cannot talk about other aspects of the bill which he obviously must support.

There is no question that we are talking about the issue of ensuring that young people do not engage in smoking by way of increasing taxes. I do not think the member has a problem with that. Clearly, we are talking about making the regime, particularly for the vintners, more realistic in terms of the 21st century, instead of having them mired as they were in the 19th century. This makes ample sense.

It is important that we keep an eye on issues such as smuggling, the illegal production of alcohol, which again the industry asked us to respond, warehousing regimes and deferring the payment of duty. The bill deals with these issues. These are the real issues, not the nonsense that we continually hear from across the way on an issue which has no basis in fact.

I suggest we deal with the real issues and the content of the bill. The bill has the support, has been articulated and is now here before the House. The bill clearly addresses the kind of issues that we want to see as Canadians. Fines for alcohol related offences will be increased substantially. Serious alcohol offences will now be subject to the proceeds of crime provision. These are very important.

Therefore, I hope that a majority of members on both sides of the House will deal with the real issues. The issue of improving the administration and reducing compliance costs for the industries are very important. These are the real issues today. These are the issues we need to talk about and on which we need to focus.

I hope that when the time comes to vote on the legislation we will send a clear message of support to the industry that this needs to move forward. We need to be more effective and efficient, and that is what the bill addresses.

As members know, there are many benefits and I have outlined these in my comments before. Very quickly, a simple and more certain taxation structure, equal treatment for all parties and improved administration and lower compliance costs are important. There has to be greater flexibility for a business to organize its commercial affairs and enhanced protection for excise revenues. These are important. This will bring an act that is mired in the 19th century fully up to date.

We have heard comments and we have responded. Bill C-47 addresses the key issues of the day. It is a strong bill. When it comes to issues such as beer, the Department of Finance is reviewing the proposals that have been put forth and we will respond in an effective and timely manner.

However that is outside the purview of the bill. Talking about beer is like talking about jet fighters. They have about as much relevance to Bill C-47 as beer does. I challenge the hon. member on the other side to stick to the issues rather than trying to debase the House with needless comments. If the hon. member has nothing to say he should do what his mother probably told him and not say anything. In this case he would be better off to stick to the facts and the issues.

At the end of the day we seek to bring forth a modern legislative and administrative framework which would be important for the industry. It would be important for the people involved with spirits, wine and tobacco. It would be important for all concerned. It is important to stick to the issues at hand. We must make sure we address what we have heard from the provinces and the industry so we can adopt legislation that would benefit everyone concerned.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's comments, and as the saying goes we cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. No matter how often we talk about beer, it is not in the bill. However I do want to address some comments that the member made.

What are the concerns of the beer industry? The member did not raise them. They happen to be issues regarding the point of imposition, warehousing, licensing requirements, loss allowances and control on beer exports. What are the facts? Bill C-47 does not deal with the issue of beer and we have already gone through the reasons why it does not. The finance department is reviewing a report on the beer industry with regard to warehousing et cetera.

Excise duty applies to both domestic products and to imports at the same rate. Excise duty does not apply to exports. Canadian small breweries are no less competitive with regard to foreign small breweries when selling in this country.

The government and members on this side of the House are concerned about microbreweries in Canada. That is why the government is looking carefully at this issue. We will not make a change with some magic wand which may turn out to be no improvement at all. We want to ensure we get it right, and we are working in consultation with the industry. That member should know that. If he were that concerned about microbreweries he would want to ensure we get it right the first time. Unfortunately, he seems to have the view that somehow we can go ahead and do something which in fact is not in the bill.

We have already had discussions with the industry and it indicated we were to move ahead with Bill C-47 dealing with the merits of the bill itself, tobacco, spirits and wine.

It has been mentioned many times in the House that this is an administrative bill, and again the Bloc would rather play politics. The Bloc made some odious comments with regard to some linkage between large breweries and the governing party. Shame on that member for raising such nonsense when he knows beer is not in the bill. However he wants to play politics. We want to get it right and do the right thing for microbreweries.

The member across the way is correct, we want a strong microbrewery industry in Canada. I say without hesitation that we will act sooner rather than later. We will do it based on getting the facts right and by responding to specific issues rather than going headstrong off in any direction. We cannot amend something that is not there no matter how often that party wants to say it.

Would the member like to give his views on issues regarding tobacco and smuggling? How does he see the bill addressing the issue regarding small vintners which is of concern to members of that party as well. I wonder if he would like to give his views on how the bill addresses those issues.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Will somebody lift the bridge, the foghorn is up again. He is not listening. Maybe he should listen to the fact and get it straight. There is no beer in the bill.

Could my colleague comment on the kind of approach the government is taking in terms of analyzing this separately? Why would that be important in terms of the other issues that are raised in the bill in terms of moving it forward?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the comments of my hon. colleague. He clearly has read the bill but I would like him to respond to something.

The Bloc members continue to make comments about Bill C-47 in that they want to see the reduction of excise duty on beer. The bill does not deal with the taxation of beer. In fact it does not deal with the substantive rate issues for any products.

The member across the aisle has made a lot of comments about beer. The member knows that first reading on the bill was in December 2001 so clearly there was no conflict of interest by the chair since she did not become chair until February.

I would ask the member to comment on the fact that the Department of Finance is currently reviewing the analysis with regard to proposals put forth by the beer industry and by the wine and cider industry as well, which I know is of interest to members across the aisle from Quebec. What does the member think of this approach in terms of looking at it specifically, since the government was faced with the situation where the industry asked that beer not be put into the bill so that we could analyze it separately, deal with the issue and then move forward?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the only transparency I see here is the ignorance on the other side of the House. I cannot believe for one moment that the member on the other side of the House, who is not even on the committee, would make the suggestion that it was somehow only decided at the last moment that beer would not be in the bill. In fact, as I said, from the review back in February 1997, as discussions went forward it was decided that it would not be part of the bill. It was made very clear at the beginning that it was not part of the bill. If the member had read it, she would know that.

Although she is getting her cues from her colleague, unfortunately they are the wrong cues. Again, the only transparency is the lack of understanding of the members on the other side with regard to this issue. It is disappointing because, again, we have made this very clear from day one and I would have expected more. However, that may be, I guess, the nature of what the Bloc says.

The question again to the member is this: Can the member cite for me anywhere in the bill where she sees the words beer or brewery?

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was a bit surprised to hear the comments of the member opposite about the issue of conflict of interest with beer when in fact in Bill C-47 the words beer or brewery do not appear at all.

For the member's information, in February 1997 when the discussion paper was originally released, the suggestion was made at that time that we would not include beer because of specific concerns that the brewing industry had. The brewing industry in fact indicated to the government that we should move ahead with Bill C-47 and that, for the record, we look at beer separately. That is currently what the department is doing and the department will come back with specific recommendations which may then come in the form of legislation.

Unfortunately, my friends from the Bloc did not listen when we presented this to the committee originally, they did not listen during committee and they are still not listening. In fact, they are not listening because it does not fit what they want to say. There is no conflict because beer is not in the bill. Therefore, it is very difficult to amend legislation about something which is not there.

I would ask the member to explain to us how we can amend legislation about a commodity which is in fact not even in the legislation.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the spirits industry will no longer be hindered by outdated and onerous controls over premises and equipment. With these controls removed, businesses will have greater flexibility to organize their commercial affairs to respond more quickly to market changes.

The bill would require anyone producing or packaging spirits or wine to have an alcohol licence. While all vintners must be licensed, those with sales under $50,000 in the previous 12 months will continue to qualify for the small manufacturers' tax exemption. Individuals producing wine for personal use will continue to be exempt from having to be licensed and pay duty.

The new warehousing regime introduced in the bill for deferring the payment of duty on packaged alcohol will place domestic and imported packaged alcohol on an equal footing. This measure is also designed to accommodate the privatization initiatives of some provinces for the warehousing of alcohol.

There will also be comprehensive controls on the non-beverage use of spirits and wine to ensure the protection of federal excise revenues derived from beverage alcohol. These controls include the licensing or registration of users of non-beverage alcohol, the approval of product formulations for which spirits and wine may be used without payment of duty, and the specification of denaturing standards.

The bill would eliminate the current nominal rates of duty on certain non-beverage uses of spirits such as spirits used in pharmaceutical products. These nominal duties are inconsistent and onerous in application and disadvantage domestic products manufactured with spirits vis-à-vis similar foreign products entering Canada.

New rules for imported industrial alcohol, such as requiring the alcohol to be sampled and tested to ensure it meets Canadian denaturing standards, will ensure the integrity of the domestic alcohol market and protect federal revenues.

Finally, fines for alcohol related offences will be increased substantially and serious alcohol offences will now be subject to proceeds of crime provisions.

I will now turn to some of the tobacco provisions under Bill C-47. Under the new excise framework, the current excise duty and excise tax on tobacco products, other than cigars, will be merged into a single production levy. This will mean improved administration and reduced compliance costs for the industry.

While these new measures will provide a more streamlined framework for the taxation of tobacco, the fundamental controls over tobacco under the existing excise framework, such as the stamping and marking requirements for tobacco products, will be maintained.

The legislation also includes the current offence provisions relating to the illegal production, possession or sale of contraband tobacco, which have proven to be effective.

At the same time, the new excise framework incorporates the revised tobacco tax structure that parliament passed last spring.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the bill introduces modern collection tools and helps to address the government's ongoing concern over the smuggling of alcohol.

New administrative measures will enable the CCRA to improve its level of service to clients and its overall administration of the excise framework for alcohol and tobacco products.

These measures include a duty remittance and return structure harmonized with commercial accounting periods and the goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax; new assessment and appeal provisions; and a range of modern collection mechanisms, such as certificates of default, garnishment, seizure and sale of goods and directors' liability.

Further, persons dealing with exciseable goods who fail to comply with the act will be subject to a range of administrative penalties.

The new excise framework will ensure that the excise duties on alcohol and tobacco are collected in a more effective and efficient manner. As well, it provides an array of modern administrative and enforcement tools for ensuring compliance with the new act.

In summary, this new framework for the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco products will provide a simple and more certain taxation structure, equal treatment of all parties, improved administration and lower compliance costs, greater flexibility for business to organize its commercial affairs and enhanced protection of excise revenues.

Before closing, there are three additional measures in the bill that I want to mention to hon. colleagues. The first concern deals with changes to the ships' stores provisions under the customs and excise legislation that grant relief from duties and taxes for goods used aboard ships and aircraft in international service.

These changes respond to a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal that the ships' stores regulations went beyond the scope of their enabling legislation. Bill C-47 rectifies this situation by providing the proper legislative authority for these regulations.

Another measure relates to certain ships travelling on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River that are not engaged in international trade and which no longer qualify for ships' stores relief after May 31, 2002. These ships will now be entitled to a temporary fuel tax rebate on fuel produced between June 1, 2002 and December 31, 2004. This rebate will provide the affected operators with adequate time to make the transition to the new ships' stores rules.

The final measure implements the federal tax increases on tobacco products that were announced in November which re-established a uniform federal tax rate for cigarettes across the country. These increases are co-ordinated with provincial tobacco tax increases and are one more step in the process of restoring tobacco tax rates to pre-1994 levels in ways that will minimize the risk of renewed contraband activity. They are also part of the government's comprehensive strategy to reduce tobacco consumption.

I urge my hon. colleagues to give their full support to the bill. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the new excise act introduces a modern, legislative and administrative framework for the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco products, thereby addressing a longstanding need of both the industry and the government.

With respect to the remaining measures in the bill, it makes sense to rationalize the ships' stores provisions and to approve the tobacco tax increases for reducing tobacco consumption.