Gerald Keddy

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak in the House not necessarily about some of the provisions that are in in Bill C-43, but rather the lack of provisions.

Bill C-43 would establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and would amend and repeal other acts as a consequence.

There is a myriad of things that could be done to improve the taxation system in Canada. Every member has a list of grievances from constituents as long as their arm. They stretch from some of the more mundane things, such as HST taxation in Nova Scotia, which is very important to those constituents, or the GST, all the way over to tax free electronic transmissions which amount to trillions of dollars per day throughout the world.

Perhaps this bill should not be thrown out entirely, but there are huge pieces that should be rejected because of what it does not do. I am not proposing that we throw the baby out with the bathwater; I am proposing that we take a look at really doing something with taxation in this country that would benefit individuals, the men and the women who elect us to represent them in this House of Parliament of Canada.

I would like to speak directly to one issue mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. That issue brought a little relevance to this discussion. It is the issue of capital gains.

I rose earlier in this House and reported to members that capital gains is a very unfair tax because we are taxed on income that we have worked all our lives for and we have already paid tax on. I find capital gains to be despicable. That is the only word I can use to fully explain it.

There is a lack of direction. We have put questions in the House to the Minister of Finance on capital gains taxation on private woodlots in Canada. Those questions were simply put aside as if they were of no importance. They are of importance to the more than 450,000 private woodlot owners in Canada.

Private woodlot taxation has never been looked at as any type of issue in Canada. It has never been looked at in a realistic way to, first, improve revenue on woodlots for the people who own them and, second, to actually generate, in the long term, more revenue by producing more jobs, thus producing more revenue for the Government of Canada.

We have a real problem with capital gains taxation on private woodlots which take 40, 50 or 60 years to grow. It is beyond the realm of this government and many governments before it to imagine the scope of it. Unfortunately, most politicians think from election to election and do not look at the future. We try to encompass that once in awhile. Sometimes we are partially successful in doing it. But we do not do a good enough job at it. Capital gains taxation on private woodlots is one way we could come to grips with some of the issues.

If it takes 40, 50 or 60 years to grow a woodlot in this country, in many instances there is no income derived from that woodlot for 40 years.

All of a sudden the woodlot owner finds himself or herself with a windfall gain against which they do not have the opportunity to claim any, or very little expense.

Unless they are a farmer they do not have the option of taking the $500,000 capital gains exemption. They have the same capital gains exemption of $100,000 that every ordinary citizen in Canada has. It is inadequate. It does not cover the cost of fibre on the woodlot today, which has increased dramatically.

A private woodlot of approximately 125 acres, or 50 hectares, 20 years ago might have generated $80,000 or $90,000 worth of stumpage. Today that might generate $500,000 worth of stumpage. There is no comparison. The government may as well wake up now and find a way to accommodate that in our taxation laws.

There should be a method, there should be some utilization of that income, where it can be put back into the ground, the forest, the farm, the woodlot and the expenses that will be incurred over a period of perhaps 20 years after harvest will be incorporated into that tax gain over time.

That has not been approached. I have certainly discussed it directly with the minister. There has been no attempt to accommodate anything like that. The Canadian Private Woodlot Owners Association and certainly the private woodlot owners association in the Atlantic provinces have lobbied the minister very diligently to do something positive about it.

We are facing all kinds of crises in our forests. We have WTO obligations that we have to live up to. We have unfair trade practices going on in the U.S. and discrimination against softwood lumber products. We have ISO 14000 certification. We have the stewardship of forests in Canada certification.

All of these things are being put on the shoulders of private woodlot owners and forest companies in Canada and the government is refusing to allow any kind of a tax break to deal with them. It is refusing to back down on its capital gains for private woodlot owners.

In order to certify a property and have sustainable forest management, how can that be done as a woodlot owner in any province of Canada? If the woodlot was inherited or purchased 30, 40 or 50 years ago and now has a harvest of timber that will probably be valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, there is no way to claim that. There is no incentive for the owner to put anything back into the forest. That man or woman is facing a discriminatory tax regime against progressive forest management.

It is like a cat or a dog chasing its tail. It goes around and around and around. Somehow, some way, we have to get the message through to the government that it needs to deal with the issues of the day, the issues that are important to all Canadians, the issues that create jobs in the country and not simply go off on some tangent and revise the entire financial act or the entire Revenue Canada act. There are other ways to do it.

I am not proposing for a moment that the system we have is the best system we could have, but these changes do not incorporate the very real changes that are needed in order to produce income, especially for private woodlot families, farm families and individual investors in this country, so that they could put money back into their woodlots and have a sustainable forest to meet the ISO 14000 guidelines, to meet the forest stewardship of Canada guidelines and to continue to export lumber as we have done for 500 years.

I wish for just a brief moment that the government would look at some of the possibilities that are in front of it instead of going off and trying to write the map from scratch. It is not dealing with the issues.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

I was listening to his comments about cutting the timber on the ranches and the very real fear among constituents straight across this country from coast to coast to coast of capital gains. There is a misunderstanding of the whole problem of dealing with capital gains and income within a family for future generations. The understanding is that all this capital gains has already been taxed, that we have paid tax on everything we have acquired throughout a life.

Very quickly, I think part of the problem especially in forestry issues is that there is no way the Income Tax Act can accommodate the growth of capital in forest land prior to the 40, 50 or 60 years it takes to produce that fibre. All of a sudden there is a windfall profit and it cannot be claimed in the ensuing 10, 20 or 40-year period after it has been acquired.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed also by residents of South Shore. These constituents believe that this parliament should enact Bill C-225.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by the residents of South Shore. These constituents believe that this government should repeal Bill C-68 on the grounds that it does nothing to deter violent crimes and that the money would be better spent on putting more police on the street.

[The Late Leonard Jones, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I note the words of the member for Moncton. As the House marks the passing of Leonard Jones, we in the Progressive Conservative caucus send our condolences to the Jones family.

It is perhaps appropriate to note that political differences are left behind when one faces the ultimate mysteries of mortality. In this place, which has seen radical differences and dramatic reconciliation over the years, we mark the passing of one who fought for what he believed.

[Swissair Flight 111, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on September 2, 1999 the citizens of Canada will pause and remember the tragic crash of Swissair flight 111. Many citizens of the south shore of Nova Scotia are living today with the aftermath of that disaster. The communities on the Aspotogen Peninsula and Tancook Island are in the midst of the ongoing cleanup effort that is literally on their doorsteps.

Fishers from those communities were among the first to respond. They, like their forebears, are no strangers to disasters at sea. They left their homes in the dark of night to assist in the desperate search for survivors. Today there are still hundreds of men and women involved in the cleanup.

The sincere effort made by all the volunteers and professionals who have assisted and continue to assist in this tragic accident is a testimony to the strength of Canadian character and the true fibre of the men and women of the south shore of Nova Scotia.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the comments of the hon. member opposite is a revelation of a thought process I do not quite comprehend and do not pretend to understand. I thought I was a fairly clear, reasonably thinking person. There are a number of discrepancies in what the hon. member is saying. I would like to question him on a couple of them.

I will use an example. This morning on the Internet I found some information put out by the government. It is propaganda on Bill C-68. One of the items is 10 reasons for the registration of all guns. We could go through the argument point by point but we would be wasting a lot of valuable time although they deserve to be looked at. One of the last points is less paperwork. I want to ask the hon. member about that issue. Somehow this is going to put more policeman in service on the streets because we will have less paperwork.

These are the application forms for this law that is going to bring less paperwork, make our streets safer, give us more policemen actually on the beat in our communities. It starts with 669 and goes up to 774. These are the forms that are available for registering guns.

There are applications for a possession only licence under the Firearms Act for individuals who currently own firearms; for a possession and acquisition licence under the Firearms Act for acquiring firearms and/or crossbows, these are for individuals; for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act; for a firearms licence for businesses and museums; for a sponsor of a gun show; for a carrier firearm licence; to register non-registered firearms, long guns for individuals; to register a newly imported restricted firearm for individuals; to reregister previously registered firearms, restricted and prohibited firearms; to register firearms for businesses and museums; for authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms and prohibited handguns; for authorization to carry restricted firearms and prohibited handguns; transfer and to register, and there is another full page of applications.

I want to know from the member opposite, after he sits there and gives his head a shake, how we are cutting paper and putting more people on the street. Come on now. I would like the hon. member to explain it.

[Natural Resources, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources knows that the B.C. forest industry suffered losses of $192 million in 1997. This was due in large part to strikes, market shutdowns and the impact of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement.

Recent U.S. customs rulings have restricted imports of Canadian lumber even further. What actions have the Minister of Natural Resources and the government taken to resolve the impact of these restrictions on Canadian lumber and the impact on the B.C. economy?

[Division No. 216, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting no on this motion as well.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty it is very difficult for me to respond to those comments. I am not aware of what is on the Progressive Conservative website.

I think I can say with a clear conscience, knowing our party's positions, our stance, our reputation and our history for even-handed and clear policy, that I would hope the member is mistaken. I would assume that he is.

However, I would like to say that I noted that all members in the debate on the Mi'kmaq bill, which is what we are discussing, offered clear debate. We were not always in agreement and probably will not always be in agreement. However, we have to listen to other sides of the argument if we want to come up with an answer at the end of the debate.