Leon Benoit

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly meant no disrespect by raising an issue that had been dealt with by the House. I could refer just as easily to many times in the past when this word has been used as a means of closing down debate.

Many times members of our party have been standing here, engaged in honest, open debate, trying to get our point of view across. We want to hear the opposition's point of view. We need that open debate, not just here in the House but across the country. So often debate has been closed down by members of the governing party hanging labels on us. That is unacceptable. It is a practice that hurts. It does not just hurt us, it hurts the people who are hanging these labels that end debate. It hurts democracy more than it hurts anything else.

In this country we must be allowed to have open and honest debate. Canadians expect that.

With regard to the harmonization bill, it is not going to get the government off the hook and the amendments are not going to fix the bill. No amendment could fix this bill. The promise must be kept.

[Excise Tax, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate the Group No. 1 amendments to the GST-2 bill, the so-called harmonization bill.

Really we should not be here today debating this piece of legislation. I remember so clearly during the election campaign one Liberal after another, including the Prime Minister, state they would get rid of the GST, they would abolish the GST, kill the GST.

I remember listening and thinking it is going to be interesting to be there in the House of Commons to see how they will do that.

They decided after they got into government that they could not do it. Therefore to try to deceive Canadians they presented this harmonization bill saying "we have done what we have promised, we got rid of the GST as we promised". Of course, it will not fool many Canadians.

We have the GST. Now what we have is one GST for three provinces, the so-called harmonized GST-2. Then we have the old GST, the one brought in by the Conservatives, the one that was going to be killed by this government in the rest of Canada.

This promise made during the election campaign no doubt won this Liberal government many seats. There is no doubt about that. In Ontario 10, 20, 30 seats, who knows, were won by Liberal candidates because of promises to get rid of the GST. It was a key election promise. It is a promise that has not been delivered on in any way, in any state, in any fashion. This government must be held accountable for that. What we have is GST-2, a so-called harmonized GST.

We are here today to debate Group 1 of the amendments. It is hardly worth debating amendments to this piece of legislation. This legislation really does not warrant support in any way. By making these amendments it is not going to negate the fact that another promise made by candidates running in the last election, made by the Prime Minister before the last election, during the election campaign and even since the election promise to get rid of the GST, no number of amendments are going to overcome that fact, and that is a fact. This government does not seem to understand what integrity is. This is just another one of those issues that demonstrate that so clearly.

The promise, of course, has come back to haunt this government. We have had the Deputy Prime Minister, after talking to a bank machine, decide that she was going to step down. She did it because she knew she would not have a hope in heck of winning again during a regular election campaign if she did not. It cost the taxpayers $500,000 because she could not look that bank machine in the eye.

We have a finance minister that has asked for forgiveness for maybe not delivering on this key promise of the last election campaign. He said "we made a mistake" and he asked for forgiveness. But this is more than a mistake. A key election promise was broken. That is not a mistake. I do not think the taxpayers and the voters in this country should be forgiving. I do not think they should just let the finance minister get away with breaking a key promise.

We have the member for York South-Weston who was banished from the Liberal caucus by the Prime Minister because he kept insisting-he was member of Parliament for this Liberal government-that his own political party and his own government would see the light, would show some kind of integrity, some degree of integrity and keep that election promise. He was so determined that he was not going to be a part of this broken promise that he pushed the point until he was thrown out of the party. He is now sitting as an independent. He at least of all the hundred some Liberal members of Parliament had enough integrity to stand up for this constituents on this issue.

The member for Broadview-Greenwood temporarily went into self-imposed exile over this issue. He knew that it is wrong to break a promise and that Canadian voters no longer are going to just say "oh well, we didn't expect you to keep this promise anyway". They expect political parties when they are out on the campaign trail to make promises that they are going to keep, in particular the key promises. I think they should expect that all promises will be honoured but in particular the key promises like this GST which should certainly be honoured by the people who make the promises.

There is no doubt this issue is going to cost this Liberal government those seats that it won based on this promise and I think it is going to cost it a lot of seats besides. Canadians are absolutely sick and tired of politicians who say they are going to do something and they get down to Ottawa and they completely forget what they said they were going to do.

Thinking of the events of yesterday and today, Canadians have decided they are fed up with other things that take place in this House as well. Yesterday we heard once again a member from across the floor use a word and call one of my colleagues a racist. That is unacceptable. But we have been putting up with this for three years in this House. Words like that-

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thought I had only spoken for five minutes. I guess our watches are not synchronized.

In closing, since we cannot get unanimous consent in regard to the agreement on internal trade, other Reformers and I have proposed that instead of a requirement for unanimous consent there should be a requirement for the approval of at least two-thirds of the provinces which would include at least 50 per cent of the population, the double majority. This is just an example. I am not saying exactly what should be done here.

I would probably support that kind of formula in this amendment. But it is not there so I do not support it.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, December 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-60, the legislation which will put in place the federal food inspection agency. I will be making presentations as we go through these groups of motions but I will only speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 13 from group 3.

First, I support the amendment in group 1. It could be considered to be a symbolic amendment which asks the federal government to respect the legislative authority of the provinces with regard to this legislation. It is important, it is not strictly symbolic and it deserves to be supported.

This amendment deals with process. I would like to quote from a brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, probably Canada's largest organization representing farmers across the country. The brief was given to the committee dealing with Bill C-60. I will read a couple of paragraphs from it. I think it should be entered in Hansard . I support most of what is presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in these two paragraphs.

It talks about the process although in part the process that has led up to this legislation being where it is right now.

"The intention to streamline efforts to save costs and create a more efficient system is one which CFA has supported from the outset. The consultation process concerning the structure of the new streamlined entity was good as far as it went.

"One of the major failings from an industry point of view, even now as the legislation works its way through Parliament, is a real business plan with costs and realistic revenue projections that can be shared with those who are effectively the shareholders. As cost recovery systems become part of business life, government must realize that, as in any other business, those who pay call the tune. When industry is forced to pay user fees it considers itself not just a stakeholder, but a shareholder".

I have just one more paragraph from the brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the agriculture committee.

"From this point of view, it is somewhat difficult to comment on the legislation Bill C-60. As are most other pieces of new legislation, it is enabling legislation. Most of the detail will be in the regulations which we do not have to review. We also do not have a clear understanding of the financing of the agency. Statements such as: `There will be no new cost recovery fees for the first year of operation, April 1997 to March 31, 1998', when the industry knows that a new battery of fees will be imposed on April 1, 1997, create at best a level of scepticism, at worst, a level of distrust. The fact that the legislation creates a single stand alone food inspection agency with no clear accountability to shareholders gives us pause. What are we being asked to comment on?"

The closing question is what are they being asked to comment on? That is so true. With this legislation, as with so much other legislation that is presented to the House, it has a very broad scope, without enough detail, not enough clear guidance and restriction. It implements an institution and a policy which is uncertain at best. That is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is saying. It is also a big concern to me.

The devil is in the details. The regulations will not be debated and passed in the House either at committee or right here on the floor. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is very upset about it and so am I. It has presented its case very well on this new agency. It does not approve of the process.

I support Motion No. 1 dealing with another part of the process, asking for the approval of the provinces in regard to this legislation.

The second motion from this grouping I would like to speak on is Motion No. 13. I oppose this amendment.

The amendment requires the minister to establish policy standards in consultation with the provinces. I approve of that part of the amendment. Of course there should be consultation with the provinces. There should be approval from the provinces. However, the amendment requires the approval of each province.

Of all governments, this government should know how difficult it is to get unanimous consent of the provinces on an issue such as this. To its credit, the government took the initiative to put in place the agreement on internal trade. It is an agreement which required the unanimous consent of the provinces to remove some of the trade barriers between the provinces that have been put in place over the last 130 years.

Unfortunately many sections of the agreement on internal trade are blank because the government could not get the unanimous agreement of the provinces. Even the completed sections are not being honoured. It is almost impossible to do anything about an infringement or failure to honour the agreement because it requires unanimous consent of all provinces. It does not work. This amendment calls for unanimous consent of the provinces but it is highly unlikely that any major change like this would ever pass.

With regard to the agreement on internal trade, I propose-

[Petitions, December 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table on behalf of several western Canadians, under Standing Order 36, a petition that calls for an end to the GST on reading materials.

Specifically, the petition asks the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated and unequivocal promise to remove federal sales tax from books, magazines and newspapers.

[Excise Tax Act, December 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in the little time I have allocated to me today I would like to talk about the so-called harmonization of the GST from two different points of view. I will talk about the deal itself and the fact that it is a bad deal, that it will hurt business and kill jobs in Atlantic Canada and across the country. Also, I will talk about the lack of integrity in government. The more important part of my presentation today will be to point out that this government has completely lacked integrity on this and a lot of other issues and Canadians should find this unacceptable.

First, about the deal itself, it is clearly a bad deal for business. The premiers of the Atlantic provinces had to be bribed with a billion dollars just to accept this deal. Of course Prince Edward Island has not accepted it. The Liberal Government of Prince Edward Island was defeated recently partly because of the consideration of this deal. Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia have completely refused to talk about the issue, while Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island really have been less than positive about the deal.

To accurately call this harmonization of sales taxes, it would have to apply right across the country. What we have is a deal only for three Atlantic Canadian provinces. That hardly makes for harmonization of the GST. Let us not call it harmonization. Let us talk about it for what it really is.

The Ontario finance minister said that this deal will cost Ontarians over $3 billion. That is a lot of money. I am sure the people of Ontario who elected many of the Liberal MPs on their promise of abolishing the GST must be very upset about what has happened here. Not only has the promise to abolish, scrap, kill the GST been broken, but in an attempt to cover up this broken promise according to the finance minister of Ontario, it will cost the people of Ontario $3 billion just for the deal with the Atlantic provinces. The people of Ontario cannot possibly be very happy about this.

This policy demonstrates what has already been demonstrated by this government many times before: the lack of a broad vision, the lack of well thought out comprehensive policy on issues. Too often we have had piecemeal legislation, which is the case again here. This legislation applies to only three provinces out of the ten. It is called harmonization but clearly it is not.

What will this legislation do for businesses and jobs? This is the most important issue to consider in terms of this deal. It will be a big job killer. Several people who are involved and who will be affected by this deal have made that clear.

The three major retailers in Atlantic Canada have stated that the annual retail deficit will total $27 million once harmonization is implemented. One private sector retailer in Atlantic Canada was

contemplating opening two more stores in 1997 but has scrapped that plan because of this deal. That means jobs lost.

Both privately owned and publicly traded stores are reluctant to explain the problems they face as a result of harmonization so as not to jeopardize customer confidence and the value of their stock. They must be careful in even talking about the effects of this deal.

However, the Retail Council of Canada has said that in forcing stores to bury the new so-called harmonized tax, the harmonized tax regime will cost retailers $100 million a year. Not only is this so-called harmonization which affects only three Atlantic provinces going to cost the other Canadian provinces $1 billion over the next three years, but it will also cost Atlantic Canada retailers $100 million. That will mean job losses. Business people will have to work even more hours which will mean more time away from their families. That is unacceptable.

An article in the December 4 Globe and Mail discussed the so-called harmonization and some of its impacts. It stated that the major increases will be on items such as home heating fuel and clothing which will be taxed at 15 per cent instead of the 7 per cent GST that is now applied. The tax will increase on essential items that nobody can avoid buying, such as heating fuel and clothing, and this will drive the prices up substantially.

In the Globe and Mail article the Retail Council of Canada said that businesses will have to spend $28 million to get their pricing systems ready by April 7. This is a huge blow to Atlantic retailers'', said Peter Woolford, senior vice-president of the council.Retail profits average about 2 per cent of sales'', he said, and this is going to cut even further into those narrow margins.

Mr. O'Brien, Atlantic director for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said that in the case of one magazine store in Halifax, the owner will have to change the prices on as many as 8,500 journals a week. We are not talking about some megabusiness but about one small business owner who will have to change the prices on 8,500 journals a week. His comment is that he will have to work another seven hours a week when he is already working 70 hours a week. This is completely unacceptable.

It is completely unacceptable to make changes that will make for more totally non-productive work for business owners and that will extend the hours of already overworked business owners, operators and workers in this country. We need less government interference. These people need more time to spend with their families. Clearly this bill will mean just the opposite in Atlantic Canada.

Of course it has an impact across the country. A billion dollar increase in costs will mean more taxes for Canadians in other provinces. That means more working hours and less time to spend with families. This will damage the already strained situation of families.

I would like to close by talking about lack of integrity in government. I want to begin with some quotes from the Prime Minister and the finance minister in 1990, when they were getting into full gear for the election campaign.

The Prime Minister said in the Toronto Star in 1990: `The Liberals will scrap the goods and services tax if they win the next general election, leader Jean Chrétien says.I am opposed to the GST, I have always been opposed to it and I will be opposed to it always'''.

From the finance minister: "I would abolish the GST", April 4, 1990.

Then in 1992 as we got into the heat of the election campaign the Liberal leader was quoted in the Toronto Star , December 21, 1992: ``With the federal election only months away Liberal leader Jean Chrétien faces two questions that are being posed with increasing urgency. Does he stand by his word to scrap the goods and services tax? The answer was given by the Prime Minister's communications director, Peter Donalo when he said that the leader is committed to doing away with the thing and to tell Canadians before the election where he would make up the money''. Of course, that has not happened. It is totally unacceptable that has not happened. A promise was made and clearly the promise has been broken.

In closing I would like to quote a comment from the member for Kingston and the Islands at a meeting here in Ottawa. When the member for Kingston and the Islands was asked about the GST and the fact that a promise had been broken, his comments was: "We changed our minds". I do not think Canadians will view it with that levity.

[Barley Plebiscite, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the annual meeting of the Alberta Wheat Pool in Calgary, Michael Bury, an Alberta Wheat Pool delegate, asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a question about the upcoming plebiscite on barley marketing. He wanted to know what percentage turnout and what percentage of the vote would be required to carry the plebiscite. The minister responded that he would decide after the vote what turnout would be required and what percentage of the vote would carry the plebiscite. Mr. Bury's comment was: "Sounds really democratic", but I do not think he really meant it.

A person who believes in democracy would set the rules before the vote, but not this government. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will not announce whether the plebiscite will be binding or what percentage of voters will be required in order to carry the barley plebiscite.

Would we not all like to be able to pick our 649 numbers after the draw?

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, once again, we are not objecting to Madam Justice Louise Arbour. We are not reflecting on her character or her capabilities in any way. We have made that very clear throughout this debate.

We are objecting to process. We clearly do not believe the government should break the law even if it is only breaking it by a little bit. We do not believe it should be violating the Judges Act. Let us make the appropriate changes in a democratic way.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am saddened that the member of the governing party has completely distorted what Reform has done on international issues. Our member of Parliament for Red Deer has done an admirable job in giving advice to the foreign affairs minister, in particular, with respect to serious situations. That advice has been heeded in some cases, although not enough.

We made it very clear that we do not object to this judge's doing that work. We object to the process that is being used. We object to the government's breaking the law. We do not think it should be violating the Judges Act. That is what we believe.

[Judges Act, November 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying before I presented the motion, Reform will not support Bill C-42 because of process. I was talking about what has been wrong with the process in this House for the three years we have been here and before. This is not new.

This government has had three years to at least make it look like it is honouring some of the commitments which it made in the red book with regard to making this place more democratic, making government more accountable. In fact we have seen that it has moved farther and farther away. The government is now farther away from having a democratic government than anything we have ever had before. That is why we had better talk about process here.

I would like to comment on what should take place in this House and some changes that Reform has put forth. They are in our fresh start platform. They are part of our guarantee to Canadians that what we promised during an election campaign will be honoured. In this fresh start guarantee as we call it we give the power to the people in this country. We give the power to the people.

Some Liberals across the way are pretty uncomfortable with this and so they should be. They have heard the threats from the Prime Minister. He has told them they had better support government bills or they will not be running as Liberals next time. They know what happened this morning. A former Liberal member had his whole executive thrown out by the Liberal Party. How democratic is that? His whole party executive in his constituency was thrown out by this government. That is the most recent demonstration of the lack of democratic process in this place.

Reform wants to change this and we have put forth several specific proposals for doing that. They have actually been presented in the House before.

One example is the right to recall a member of Parliament. We want to give people the direct power to fire their members of Parliament between elections if they are not representing the constituents' views in this House. Clearly members of Parliament are not representing the views of their constituents in this House if they live under this threat by the Prime Minister. They will not be allowed to run again under the Liberal Party banner because the Prime Minister will not sign their nomination papers.

We know there are not many members of Parliament who win as independents. Some of these Liberals sitting across the way should be thinking about that because quite possibly some of them will not be allowed to run again under the Liberal banner. Their chances of getting elected as independents are very slim. There are very few who could in fact do that.

The member of Parliament for Beaver River has twice sponsored a bill in this House which would have given to the people the power to fire their member of Parliament between elections if the member was not representing the wishes of the constituents. Twice it was shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc who voted against the bill on both occasions. They teamed up and shot down this bill which would have given that kind of power to the people.

There was a second piece of legislation which was sponsored by the member for Mission-Coquitlam, a Reform member of Parliament. It would have put in place freer votes in the House of Commons. It was a very simple change which would have made it so a government bill could be defeated without defeating the government. It would require a separate non-confidence motion to pass the House to bring the government down. The bill was shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc.

And they are laughing about denying Canadians the right to be represented in this House by members of Parliament who are responsible to the people rather than to the government and the Prime Minister. They are laughing about that kind of thing. Quite honestly I find that sad. It is sad. I would not laugh about that.

The member for Mission-Coquitlam sponsored the bill, a change that was made in the House in Britain probably 20 years ago. It was shot down by the Liberals and the Bloc, a second major change.

Let us talk about what would have happened had the recall bill and the bill which would have put in place freer votes in the House of Commons passed. Imagine what that would give to Canadians. It would give Canadians a power that they have never had before.

When the Prime Minister and the whip of the party tell the members that they will toe the party line whether or not their constituents back the bill, at that time the people back home would say: "You listen to us because we will recall you. We are going to fire you before the next election". The choice for the member would be either not to have the nomination papers signed or to be fired by the people back home. It would give more power to the people back home.

The freer votes would give members of the governing party, these same people who are heckling and laughing at these changes which really would give the power to the people, the right to represent the majority of their constituents in this House without the fear of defeating the government. They could defeat a bill. We as an opposition party might bring forth a non-confidence motion. Only if the motion passed would the government be defeated. The bill would not pass but the government would not be defeated.

These two changes would completely change the relative power of the people and of the Prime Minister and the little select group that runs the country now. They would change the system from a system that my two 17-year old sons recognize pretty much as an elected dictatorship. That is their own evaluation of our system which I think is very accurate. They would change the system to one in which Canadians really did have the power over their members of Parliament and where their views really would be represented in this House. That will be a change that Canadians will welcome and a change that is long overdue.

Those two changes alone completely retilt the balance of power toward the people. We are also proposing a triple E Senate, a Senate that is elected by the people, not appointed by the Prime Minister and that small group of people who run the country, according to my sons' evaluation, with an equal number from each province, not the imbalance that we have now, and a Senate which

is effective enough to stop legislation that is unfair to any region of this country.

I know and people from Alberta and western Canada certainly know that we should have had that when the national energy program was put in place. It would have never been put in place. The triple E Senate would stop this kind of nonsense.

Another change that we put in our fresh start guarantee is the use of national referendums to settle issues like capital punishment, abortion and physician assisted suicide. These are important social issues and important to a wide range of Canadians. This change would put power directly in the hands of the people. They would not have to go through their member of Parliament any more. This would give people an equal say on settling these important issues, abortion, capital punishment, physician assisted suicide and so on. That is a change which Canadians certainly would welcome.

These members scoff and laugh at that change because they just do not understand that we could have a system that is that democratic. That is the kind of system Reform wants, the kind of system supporters of Reform want and the kind of system that we are going to do our best to put in place.

At this time I would like say that these changes are changes that Canadians do support right across the country. These are changes that this Liberal government has had three years to put in place and which Liberal governments of the past have had 20 years out of the past 30 to put in place. They have not been put in place.

It is a sad commentary on the lack of a belief in true democracy on the part of this government, and Canadians, I believe, will not tolerate it. This next election will be as much about making the system democratic as it is about anything else. Reform is the only party that will offer a true democratic government in this country. We know that because the Liberals have shot down all these motions and bills that we have brought forth which would have made the changes needed to make this country democratic. They should be ashamed.