James Moore

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

Mr. Speaker, along with the language of progressivity, it speaks again to what I said before about the contortions taken to distort a position of a political party.

Single rate tax is not a flat tax. There is a big difference. There is also a big difference between $47.1 billion in tax relief which is what is actually happening, not $100 billion in tax relief. He is not factoring in the Canada pension plan. This is what Canadians do not understand.

He made reference to the previous member for my constituency and said he missed him. The 70% of people in the riding who did not vote for him sure do not miss him.

This speaks to Liberal math. It is not $100 billion in tax relief. It is $47 billion. There is a bottom line net amount. The net amount is not good enough. Young Canadians are still leaving the country. Businesses are still closing down. Provinces are not better off. The welfare state gets larger and larger.

Frankly, I would like to see a lot of government departments have smaller budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is what happens in politics when a political debate is dumbed down into catch phrases that are supposed to represent entire economic thoughts.

The progressivity that the member talks about is nonsensical. He is describing progressivity as progressive larger chunks of income that the government takes away. Our concept of progressivity is moving the economy forward, rewarding the best and brightest and letting people keep more of what they earn so they can have a better future. That is progressive.

Although it is broken, flawed and unproven in almost every jurisdiction it has been tried, there is an economic argument presented in Das Kapital that says “The harder you work, the more you build, the more people you employ, the more you innovate, the more entrepreneurial you are, the more the state should punish you”. Yes, there is an argument out there for that.

Speaking as a young Canadian, and I hope I am not alone, it is rather progressive to say to people that the bigger the risk they take, the more successful they are, the more people they employ, the more ingenious they are, the more creative they are, the bigger sacrifices they make, the more the state is going to champion them as the kind of people that ought to live here, not the kind of people we are going to target and punish because we can take money from them and give it to the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. That is not progressivity.

However the Liberals seem to define progressivity as the progressively larger chunks that the government can take away from the builders, producers, entrepreneurs and the people who make the country work. I would suggest that the Finance Minister spend more time out there talking to small business people and telling them that in Canada they are worth something because they make the country work. They employ the people and they make the country work. The government should reward them not punish them for being the best that this country has.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were in the questions and comments phase of the discussion. I have largely concluded my comments so I would entertain any questions.

However, I did want to remind the government of the issue of brain drain and the further complications in the tax code that Bill C-22 presents. I will give the example to the House of my own family.

My brother-in-law lives in Louisiana. My sister lives in Atlanta. They are part of the brain drain. In the 19th century, the great exodus of Loyalists to Canada on the underground railway had a song they used to sing. It was called Follow the Drinking Ground . The chorus of the song is:

So long old master Don't come after me I'm heading north to Canada Where everybody's free

That was the chorus of the song they sang when they came to Canada because Canada was the place where everybody was free.

Since then it is astonishing how things have changed. The underground railway has turned into a highway heading south, by which the best and brightest leave the country. They leave this country for better opportunities.

My own sister is an example of that. She has a degree in communications in French from Simon Fraser University and she is in Louisiana helping Canadian firms that are trying to sell Canadian products in the French Bayou country. She is a Canadian earning her keep in the United States because this country does not treat her the way she thinks government really should treat its best and brightest.

The United States has a better environment for cultivating, sustaining and taking care of the best and brightest in their country. The Americans treat young people as a resource.

In this country we do not get that. The finance minister brags in the House of Commons day after day about the fact that we have a balanced budget, but he does not give credit to the people who balanced the budget: young people, entrepreneurs, the best and brightest, small business owners, families, the people who sacrifice, and people in the university departments like the small university I went to, the University of Northern British Columbia, which has a crisis in its entire financing structure because of the government.

We have a balanced budget for a whole host of reasons, like the hospitals that get shut down because of this government and like the overtaxation of small businesses. The government stands atop a dustbin of bad decisions. It stands atop the rubble of bad financial decisions and atop the shoulders of small businesses and says that because of the government and its decisions Canada has a balanced budget. Canada has a balanced budget because of nothing government has done. We have a balanced budget because of a whole host of reasons, which frankly the government does not control. The finance minister and the Prime Minister do not appoint Alan Greenspan. They do not decide the economic growth rates of the United States. They opposed free trade. They increased taxes. They increased the payroll taxes that kill jobs and the Canada pension plan. They are driving the best and brightest out of this country.

They talk and brag about balancing the budget and about bills like Bill C-22 that we are debating today, but Bill C-22 goes in the wrong direction. It further complicates the tax code. It makes it less likely that people, entrepreneurs and builders, will want to stay here because they see that this country will be something they want to be part of in 20 or 30 years. That is not good enough.

I would love to see the day when we go back to that chorus of the underground railway, where Canada is an enterprise state, where we can sing that chorus again and be proud of it. For the government members who just walked in, I will remind the House of what that chorus is:

So long old master Don't come after me I'm heading north to Canada Where everybody's free

We need economic freedom and political freedom. We do not have them, we deserve them, and if we do not, we are only sacrificing our future.

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

Mr. Speaker, a proposal allowing people to earn $250,000 before they owe their first nickel to the finance minister is the kind of progressivity we need.

I am a former student. Rather than giving a GST rebate cheque for home heating fuel expenses to students who do not pay those expenses, who do not need it and do not deserve it, why does the government not give broad based tax relief that really means something?

As the hon. member for Lethbridge knows, in modern Canada today a totally obscure bureaucrat who knows nothing, has invented nothing and has created nothing has more power in our economy than a Canadian who creates 10,000 jobs. That is the reality and we need to change it.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the very beginning of time it has been a practice for citizens to pay tax to support the services they receive.

The Book of Genesis tells us that both Abraham and Jacob paid a tax of 10% on what they owned and this tax was called a tithe. Later the Council of Vienne which sat from 1311 to 1312 approved giving the money from the tithe collected over a six year period to the King of France to finance the crusades. The concept of a simple tax on revenue has been with us for a very long time, as has been the concept of directing tax money to fund the costs of a war.

It came as no great surprise when the federal government in 1917 introduced the Income War Tax Act as a temporary measure. The act was 10 pages long and used relatively simple language. The basic obligation to pay income tax was clearly stated in subsection 4(1) where it said:

There shall be assessed, levied and paid, upon the income during the preceding year of every person residing or ordinarily resident in Canada...the following taxes:

(a) four per centum upon all income exceeding fifteen hundred dollars in the case of unmarried persons and widows or widowers without dependent children, and exceeding three thousand dollars in the case of all other persons.

At that time university educations were a rarity and one certainly did not need a degree to figure out whether or not one owed taxes and, if so, exactly how much.

Today the tax act is a case study in bafflegab. It stands in violation of one of the most basic rights of Canadians: the right to know and understand the laws that affect them.

Canada, like most other Commonwealth countries, has specific legislation requiring the publication of our laws. The Publication of Statutes Act requires that our laws be printed and distributed to the public so that the public may know the law.

Just as our legal system has long held that ignorance of the law cannot be a defence, it requires that citizens be able to access the laws and therefore know exactly what they are. This includes the Income Tax Act.

When we think about it, every citizen should know their rights and obligations. That is a basic tenet of a proper running democracy. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms meets this standard.

On the Department of Justice website the charter prints on to seven neat pages and can be downloaded in seconds. It has clear, concise wording. For example, subsection 6(1) says:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Canadians who have completed a grade three education will understand this sentence and, more important, will understand their rights and obligations.

By stark contrast the Income Tax Act is there as well. The Income Tax Act is also on the Department of Justice website. A warning lets would-be downloading taxpayers know that the act is a whopping 5.3 megabytes in size, relative to the seconds it takes to download the charter. One can only assume that this warning is so users can make room on their hard drive and/or prepare themselves for a lengthy wait by reading War and Peace or building a ship in a bottle.

When one finally receives the completed file one is also in for a very nasty surprise. Actually one is in for two surprises. The first surprise is that the act is not really written in either of our official languages. Turning to subsection 2(2), I will read the first paragraph which is written in both English and French:

In English it reads as follows: “The taxable income of a taxpayer for a taxation year is the taxpayer's income for the year plus the additions and minus the deductions permitted by Division C”.

I have chosen one of the more straightforward paragraphs. In order for taxpayers to answer the basic question “How much do I owe” or “combien dois-je au gouvernement”, Canadians who own mutual funds or who have invested in an RRSP need not only a profound knowledge of arcane English but a mind which is sufficiently powerful to follow the logistical gymnastics of the basic calculations. It is amazing how far we have regressed since 1917.

The version of the Income Tax Act which is on the Department of Justice website was last updated on August 31, 2000. That means that the web version does not reflect the changes to the act made by the October 18 pre-election mini budget. Even after wading through thousands of pages of linguistic fog, the taxpayer would still not have a clear answer to the question “How much do I owe?”

Fortunately the private sector is willing to help. The problem is that the tax act is so complicated that the books which try to explain it are nearly as thick as the act itself. Arthur Andersen's Preparing Your Tax Return is 1,264 pages with a 40 page index. Let us think about that. The index to the guide is four times the length of the original temporary Income War Tax Act. It is, however, the authoritative guide, the one that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency uses to understand the act that it must administer.

The authors of this book accurately summarize the problems with the Income Tax Act in the book's foreword. They write:

Because of the complex nature of the Canadian Income Tax Act, the fact that relatively few of its provisions have been interpreted by the tax courts, and that some of its provisions have not even been interpreted by the CCRA, it has not been possible to provide answers to all of the questions which may arise.

The complexity of the tax act is such that an entire industry now exists to help Canadians navigate the minefield the act has become. Accountants, tax guides and online tax filing services multiply like yeast in a warm oven in an effort to help the average person answer that simple five word question: “How much do I owe?”

With the complexities of the tax code that Bill C-22 adds, just imagine if other government obligations were crafted with the same complications. For example, how many traffic deaths would result if the rules of the road were as complicated as the tax act?

How many Canadians would never travel abroad if a passport application form were nearly as difficult as a tax return? How many Canadians would watch Peter Mansbridge if he used taxspeak in his newscasts? How many Canadians would drink water from a public drinking fountain if the state could not affirm the cleanliness of that water in fewer than 120,000 words?

On top of the lunacy and the complexity of our tax code, I suspect that the fog the Canadians face in understanding their tax code is deliberate on the part of the Government of Canada. I think there is an agenda here, a hidden agenda.

The fact is the relief that average Canadians feel upon successfully filing their jungle gym tax returns probably acts to dull the rage taxpayers feel working eight weeks longer than their American friends to pay their federal taxes. Let us not forget that even as the finance minister postures and smiles in the House, American workers pay their tax bill on May 3 while it takes Canadians until June 30. Perhaps it is the relief of actually working for themselves on July 1 that puts so much of the glee into Canada Day celebrations.

The result of those taxes has driven the Canadian dollar into a downward spiral. It is now hovering between 63 cents and 64 cents. The tax cuts that President Bush is considering in the United States will both affect the value of our dollar and further widen the income gap between working class Canadians and their neighbours south of the border.

Government members continue to posture and smile around their mini budget's tax relief but it hardly gives them bragging rights. It is like the Trabant claiming to be the best built east German sedan. It may be true, but it is of little comfort in a world where other countries are doing much better.

It is of even less comfort when we realize that we are paying far more federal taxes today proportionately than our grandparents paid in 1917. In 1917, a family of two with a single income of $3,000 paid $120 in taxes. In today's money that is roughly $1,349 in taxes on income of $33,373.

In 1917 Canadians started paying taxes when they earned in today's dollars almost $16,800. Today individuals under the Liberal government start paying taxes when they earn less than $8,000. In other words the tax code has become more regressive: more Liberals, more regressive.

This year a Canadian family of two earning that same $33,000 will pay $3,422 in personal income tax after the finance minister's biggest tax cut in history. That means for every $3 in taxes in 1917 today's taxpayer will pay $7.61.

If we think back, in 1917 Canada was deeply involved in the great war. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian men were fighting in Europe. Canadians supported and subsidized 100% of their patriotic effort. Their existence was 100% subsidized through tax dollars. The government introduced the Income War Tax Act to finance the war and help those brave Canadians.

Today in times of unprecedented peace and stability the government needs more than twice as much tax revenue from the average person just to run the status quo, and it does not even run that very well or outside debt.

That is a scary thought and really demonstrates the need for genuine tax relief. Other countries have figured it out. The government has not but other countries have. Places such as Ireland have learned that cutting taxes means job growth, increased competitiveness and a higher standard of living. The Celtic tiger has outpaced Canada in both standard of living and competitiveness since 1989.

The government needs to do two things to convince my generation to stay in Canada and to lure other workers here. It needs to simplify the tax system and it needs to cut taxes overall.

Simplifying our tax system is needed because it lets people know directly how much they owe and because it focuses the debate not on the language of the act but on the amount paid in tax. In other words, how big is the government and how much do we have to ante up for it? That is a healthy debate for the country.

Once people get a clear avenue of calculating their real tax burden they will demand tax cuts with the same zeal they now demand for balanced budgets. When that day comes the government will have no choice but to limit its voracious appetite for tax dollars and offer meaningful tax relief. On the same day Canada's standard of living will rise and our international competitiveness will be boosted if the government shows this kind of leadership.

As a member of the most overtaxed and debt saddled generation in Canadian history, I will celebrate that day when it comes. In the meantime I will continue voting against and speaking against Liberal halfsteps and increased tax code complications such as we see embedded in the bill we are debating today.

[Martin Luther King, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 33 years ago today a dreamer stepped onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, was shot in the throat and killed. On the spot where Martin Luther King died, there is a plaque that quotes the Book of Genesis. It says:

And they said one to another, behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now therefore, and let us slay him...and we shall see what will become of his dreams.

The dreamer has been slain and now it is up to us to champion his dream.

Martin Luther King should be not just a source of inspiration but of wisdom, wisdom in creating a more just, compassionate and loving world for all born into it. Less than 12 hours before he was killed, in his second most famous speech, with his eyes full of tears, Dr. King said “I just want to do God's will.”

Dr. King was a true servant of God and he brought us all closer to his will. His dream, wisdom and vision must not only never be forgotten but carried forward with pride, passion and vigour.

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2001]

Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. I am presenting this petition on behalf of a number of my constituents.

They are asking parliament to urge the government of China and its president, Jiang Zemin, to release Falun Dafa practitioners from jail and to encourage an open dialogue to allow them to practise their chosen faith in their chosen way through freedom of religion.

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am proud to present this petition which is signed by numerous members of my constituency.

The undersigned appeal to the Parliament of Canada to strongly urge the—

[Multiculturalism, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on top of the Prince George cross burning smear, on top of the Kamloops smear, on top of the fictitious letter defence, on top of all we have heard, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism admitted to the House yesterday that she has not been doing her job in policing and shaming a real cross burning that happened in Montreal last year.

She has misused her office on one hand and has been absent and irresponsible on the other. Will the secretary of state do herself, her government, her department and her constituents a big favour and the honourable thing and just resign?

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Skeena. From April 20 to April 22, 2001, 34 democratically elected heads of government representing a territory that spans from Iqaluit to Tierra del Fuego, with a combined population of some 800 million people, will gather in Quebec City for the summit of the Americas.

On the agenda are such topics as economic integration, improved access to education, alleviation of poverty, enhanced respect for human rights and democratic development.

The goal is to take a collective step forward toward implementing a free trade area of the Americas, a hemispheric free trade zone which would offer increased economic integration, increased economic growth and broad development that would benefit all concerned.

Those of us who accept and encourage the dynamic competitive and comparative advantage hope the talks will be frank and productive. However the talks might pale in comparison with the vigorous and shrill anti-summit disruptions that will occur throughout Quebec City. The press, always seeking to sell a racy story, will have to choose between dry stories predicting increased Canada-Costa Rica trade or explicit, loud and disruptive images of anti-summit protesters.

In the end protesters may succeed in selling their trade is bad, anti-capitalist message to an apathetic public, as they partially did in Seattle. However the average Canadian, using common sense, will know that just the opposite is true. Not only is trade good, but fair rules based trade is a goal we should pursue with vigour.

A mere look into the average Canadian kitchen, where Latin American fruits and coffee sit side by side with Mexican beer, Chilean wines and Canadian cheese, confirms the very obvious benefits of trade for all, benefits we often take them for granted. At its heart, the Quebec City summit of the Americas seeks to define rules that will ensure free trade of the Americas benefits all concerned. Unfortunately the popular focus has fallen victim to anti-free trade propaganda, propaganda that, frankly, is devoid of truth.

I will deal with some of the more often uttered objections to free trade.

We heard a minute ago from the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and, before him, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. They claim, as does the Canadian Union of Public Employees, that:

Under NAFTA Chapter 11, virtually any action by a government that limits the current or future value of assets held by a foreign corporation is subject to a claim for compensation.

While that statement is true, CUPE conveniently forgets to mention, as do opponents of NAFTA, that in Canada citizens and corporations alike, both foreign and domestic, have long had the right to sue the government for compensation for actions of the government that unjustly and unfairly damage them.

Many Canadians will probably remember the famous Pearson airport privatization scandal. It resulted from the sale, during the dying days of the Mulroney administration, of Pearson airport terminals 1 and 2 to a consortium that included some political allies.

During the 1993 election campaign the Liberals campaigned on a promise to scrap the deal and re-examine the contract. They won the election and cancelled the deal. The consortium sued. When the Liberals responded that a government could not be sued for keeping an election promise, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed. It ruled in 1995 that one could sue a government for breaking a contract and claim lost profits.

Faced with that reality, the government settled out of court with the consortium and paid it $265 million.

Canadians and Canadian companies and foreigners and foreign companies can sue the Canadian government. Not more than two blocks from this Chamber is the Federal Court of Canada which has jurisdiction “in all cases where relief is claimed against the Crown”. It recognizes the right of individuals and companies to sue the federal government. Naturally, that right includes the right to sue the government for lost profits or for compensation for loss of property.

Our trade agreements have not granted new rights to foreign companies in Canada. What they do is export Canada's standards of legal and political rights to other countries.

A second myth, often propagated by the detractors of expanded trade, is the belief that global trade is an evil which only benefits large corporations and must be fought at all costs. We heard that in the previous two presentations. This view is simply devoid of facts and serious economic reasoning. We have seen a dramatic increase in prosperity and growth as a result of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and NAFTA. We have seen firsthand the tremendous benefits of structured, rules based trade with a like minded democracy to the south.

Through the expansion of the proven principles of NAFTA to a Canada-Chile free trade agreement and to a now proposed Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement, we have sought to diversify Canada's export market, in part to make Canada slightly less dependent on trade with the United States. That is a step in the right direction.

Today Canada conducts more than 80% of its trade with the United States and we trade more with Japan, our number two trading partner, than with all of Latin America and the Caribbean combined. If trade is good then multilateral trade, trading with many partners, is even better.

The FTAA seeks to create a regime of rules based trade that will serve the interests of everyone. Think back to October of 1999, when the WTO, acting on a complaint from Japan, struck down the longstanding Canada-U.S. auto pact. By striking down the access of Canadian car plants to U.S. markets, the decision could have meant disaster and the loss of thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec.

Instead, the open trade rule of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement kicked in. Since then Canadian exports to the U.S. have increased by more than 15% in that sector. That benefits auto workers, especially members of the Canadian Auto Workers union at plants in Ontario and Quebec which now build cars for export to such distant markets as Chile and Saudi Arabia.

While the Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE, denounces free trade, exports are paying the bills for Canadian Auto Worker union members. Perhaps CUPE's leaders should listen to their CAW brothers and sisters who would tell them that rules based free trade is good and that their jobs are proof of it.

That argument has not been lost in the sovereignty plans of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois. They have always been careful to suggest separation would not remove Quebec from either the FTA or NAFTA. Whether such a status would persist is a debate for another time, but the fact is that free trade is good for Quebec's economy, and its representatives in Ottawa and Quebec City recognize and are actively reflecting that.

An argument can be made that the recent election in Mexico, which has rightly been hailed as the first open and honest election in Mexican history, was due in part to Mexico's involvement in NAFTA and to the commitment of democracy expressed in that agreement by Canada and the United States.

Similarly, it would seem that in South America a genuine commitment to democracy and all that it entails is seen as a necessary requirement to participation in the free trade area of the Americas.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas asked earlier and at committee why Cuba will not be at the FTAA summit. I told him at committee, and I will tell him again today, that Cuba will not be in Quebec City because there is no consensus among the 34 nations for it to be there. That is, I might suggest to the member for Burnaby—Douglas, because since 1959 the Castro regime has driven out, incarcerated or murdered a fifth of its population. That might have something to do with it.

Many of those protesting the summit are union activists who are staunch defenders of the collective bargaining process. Canadians have long respected that process, and they accept the need to conduct union-management negotiations behind closed doors as long as the rank and file are consulted before negotiations start and have a chance to ratify the final agreement.

Those principles must apply to the Quebec summit. Anyone who says otherwise is not truly interested in greater transparency but is using the plea for greater openness as a Trojan Horse to scuttle the FTAA process. We must recognize that behaviour for what it is: anti-democratic and contradictory to their own practices and self-interest.

In short, they selectively use closed door bargaining when it is in their best interests but not when it is in the best interests of those with whom they disagree. True democrats recognize this inconsistency as a lack of courage for an assumed, unassailable principle of collective negotiation.

I will end by quoting one of Europe's leading socialists, the Right Hon. Tony Blair, prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He said in this House:

It is time, I think, that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair.

On behalf of the official opposition, I say amen to Prime Minister Blair. Greater truth has not been spoken by a prime minister in this place for a very long time.