Leon Benoit

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and I am very pleased to see the member takes this debate seriously.

Farmers will decide what question is asked. Farmers will decide what they want to choose from in a plebiscite. Then farmers will vote and that is the system they will operate under. That is a straight answer and I thank him for the question.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Like the Prime Minister promised and like the agriculture minister promised.

That is where we are today. Alberta has decided the issue, case closed. What will come out of this committee? Nothing. I could have told members that. As soon as the minister said he was to hold this committee on grain marketing, I wrote down what the results were to be. I will be right and there will not be substantial changes. It will be just enough, they hope, to placate farmers. It is tinkering and it is typical Liberal law making.

He is the minister of procrastination, as he is called in my part of the country. I do not call him that, although maybe from time to time, but other farmers call him the minister of procrastination, and that is earned. He has not done a thing on this issue which is so important to Canadian farmers.

Where to from here? The government, and this has been backed up by the member for Souris-Moose Mountain, goes nowhere on this issue. Nothing substantial is to happen. We keep this anomaly of farmers' not being given control over marketing their own products. No other businessman would accept that, but that is what it will be under the Liberals.

However, I can absolutely guarantee the change will happen. The farmers will be given the choice. It will only happen under this government if it has a change of heart. I would not put the probability very high on that. However, after the next election it will change when the Reform Party forms the government, as I

believe we will. It will change and it will change fast. It will be done in a short time and that is a pledge I make to farmers right across western Canada. The farmers will have a say.

A plebiscite will be held and I am very confident the results of the plebiscite will be that farmers will choose to have the freedom to market the grain as they see fit and finally be given equality with the rest of Canadians.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Actually it is not what I feel at all. It is not pleasure that I feel to be speaking and to be in the House today. As I listened to the agriculture minister give his presentation I felt frustration. He really has not learned a thing over the past many years.

He was involved as parliamentary secretary to the wheat board minister in the early eighties when a plebiscite was held on whether canola should go under wheat board jurisdiction. He lost that plebiscite. Farmers did not want that to happen. I thank God that it did not happen. The canola industry has been a saviour in my part of the country without a doubt.

I felt frustration as I listened to the agriculture minister demonstrate that he really has not learned anything in that regard over the years. I felt sadness when I came to realize that as long as the government is in place the wheat board will not be changed in any meaningful way. The member for Souris-Moose Mountain has confirmed it. For that I feel sadness.

For me it has been many years of struggling. In my own farming career of 20 years, my father's before me and my grandfather's before him, we struggled to change the system to give farmers control over marketing. It is sad to see that it will not happen under the government. However it sure as heck will under Reform when we get into power.

I will speak today about what the motion is about and what it is not about. Then I will speak about what the wheat board is. I will not get technical. I will just explain what it is. Then I will give a bit of selective history because I do not have the time to go into the full history of the wheat board. The history will start in 1935 and go up to the present. Then I will speak briefly about what is likely to happen in the future.

My colleague reminded me that I only have 20 minutes. Probably I will not get through half of what I want to speak about but I will give it a good try.

The motion is about giving farmers the choice in marketing their grain. It seems sad that we need to have debate on giving farmers the choice to market their own product. What other business persons in the country allow government to market their products for them? Why has this archaic idea hung around so long? I do not know the answer but the motion is about giving farmers a choice over marketing their grain.

The motion is not about destroying the wheat board. It has nothing to do with that. It is not about making a list over here of what is good about the board and a list over there about what is not so good about the board. That is not what it is about. We do not want to get into that debate.

Farmers can debate those issues in the debate leading up to the plebiscite on the wheat board. That is the time for that debate. It has certainly taken place over the last many years and should continue, but that is not what this debate is about.

I will read the motion so there is no doubt:

That this House urge the government to amend the Canadian What Board Act to include a special 2 year opting out provision permitting those prairie producers who believe they are missing market opportunities the flexibility and choice to market their wheat and barley outside the jurisdiction of the Board.

That is what the debate is about. It is an honest debate. Every Reformer debating the issue is doing it in all seriousness from the heart and from an immense pool of knowledge on the issue. Many of us have lived under this system of marketing grain for a long time.

It is certainly not about pinning labels on people, as the member for Souris-Moose Mountain is doing to deflect the debate. It is about giving farmers a choice and that is what it should be about.

Earlier the Minister of Agriculture read very selectively about a commissioner in an article from the Western Producer . I will respond by reading from a more recent article in the Western Producer written by Barry Wilson. When referring to the Minister of Agriculture he wrote:

-strategy of defending the Canadian Wheat Board from its critics by stalling for time has one underlying, and perhaps fatal, flaw.

Again referring to the minister he continued:

Wheat board supporters have not used the time-given them to mobilize their own show of support.

He looks isolated, leading a phantom army of alleged Board true-believers who do appear to care enough to join the political battle.

Barry Wilson covers agricultural issues in the House and in committees continually. He is saying that perhaps the following is not there. Later on in my presentation I will demonstrate that is absolutely the case.

I want to talk a bit about the wheat board. I have heard some discussion about the subject. The wheat board is not a selling monopoly. There have been arguments that because the wheat board has monopoly power as a seller it will get a better price for farmers. That is not what it is. It sells into the world market. Literally dozens and dozens of major sellers sell competitive commodities into the market. It is not a monopoly seller; it does not have monopoly powers on the sell side.

Let us make no mistake that the wheat board has monopoly power on the buy side. I want the same people who talk about the benefit of monopoly power to answer why on earth they would want our farmers kept under the monopoly on the buy side. There is only one buyer to whom we can sell our wheat and barley for export and our wheat for domestic use. That is where the monopoly is on the buy side. That is to the disadvantage of farmers and there is no doubt about that.

The wheat board is also an organization which has proven to be unaccountable to farmers who pay the bills. The wheat board is totally funded by farmers from proceeds from the sale of their grain. Why on earth can farmers not see what goes on inside the organization? Why did it take a leaked document to show there was a severance package for commissioners of $290,000? It is nonsense. It is a closed organization and that has to end. It has to become accountable.

I will give a bit of history. I am not going back to 1917 when it was first put in place or to 1920 when it was put in place again. I will go back to 1935. My grandfather had been farming in Lloydminister for 15 years when it was reinstated in 1935. At that time a dual marketing system was in place. Farmers had a choice. They could either sell through the board, on their own or through a grain company. That is the way the board was set up in 1935. My grandfather said the wheat board was a saviour for him at that time. He was right.

I will talk a bit about the situation at that time. When my grandfather hauled his grain on a wagon, maybe 50 or 60 bushels at a time, to an elevator it was a haul of seven miles. At times he had longer hauls. He never knew what the elevator agent would do. He never had good market information. He lived a long way from a community where he could find out what the market was doing. Even then the information was very localized. There was not good market information. There was a cumbersome transportation system.

The wheat board was a saviour for my grandfather, but he lived and he farmed long enough to curse the wheat board because of its monopoly powers. There is no argument. It was an excellent organization. It had great value to farmers when it was put in place. It probably still does. However, that is not what this debate is about.

Then we go to 1943. During the war the Canadian government was concerned that wheat prices were going up dramatically and it wanted to get the grain cheaper for the war effort in Canada and in Britain. The government put the monopoly power in place through an order in council. That is something we would expect from this government. It was never debated and put through the House. It was established by order in council during the war in order to get cheap grain. As soon as it was put in place the prices dropped dramatically.

I have some prices for comparison between Canadian towns in the prairies and U.S. towns across the border. The comparison shows consistently that wheat was 70 cents a bushel higher in the United States than it was in Canada under the wheat board monopoly. That is $1.80 compared with $1.10. We are looking at a price difference of more than 40 per cent.

The government told Canadian farmers to accept it because it was for the war effort. Farmers are and always have been loyal citizens. They were willing to help the war effort. They were promised the difference would be paid back later, but they never saw a penny.

That is when the wheat board got its monopoly. The monopoly ended later and then returned in 1948 or 1949. We have to ask why. The only reason a government would want a monopoly in an organization such as this is so it can buy grain cheap because it has the monopoly on the buy side.

Then we get to 1980-81. The wheat is still being sold under the monopoly of the wheat board. The current minister of agriculture tried to have canola put under the board and he failed in the

plebiscite. I believe that is why the minister is so shy about holding a plebiscite now. He knows he will lose it this time as well.

I move now to the last four years. In 1993 Charlie Mayer, the minister responsible for the wheat board at the time, decided barley should be sold on the continental market. That meant farmers would have a choice to either sell through the board or directly, through a grain company or by themselves, to the United States. I would like to read a few things members of the Liberal Party said at that time.

I will read from an agriculture committee transcript of April 1993. A motion was put before the committee: "In view of the concerns that have been expressed by barley producers across the prairies with the government's plan to establish a continental barley market, the Standing Committee on Agriculture calls on the Minister of Agriculture to have a plebiscite of producers before the government takes any actions to establish a continental barley market and remove the exclusive marketing of barley exports from the Canadian Wheat Board". The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James, who sits in this government, argued there should have been a plebiscite on giving farmers the choice in marketing power.

The Conservative government, which was no more democratic than this government, refused to have a plebiscite. It wanted to ram the change through. That was not right. There should have been a plebiscite at that time.

A little later in that year, leading up to an election campaign, the Prime Minister promised a plebiscite on giving farmers a choice. The agriculture minister promised a plebiscite on giving farmers a choice. Many Liberal members promised a plebiscite on giving farmers a choice in marketing their own grain.

It is interesting how the Liberal position has changed from the time they were in opposition and how democratic they were then to now and how undemocratic they are now.

I want to get even a little closer to the present. I want to talk about what the farmers and the Government of Alberta have done about this Liberal broken promise to hold a plebiscite on the dual marketing of barley, the exact motion we are talking about, except we are saying we should try it for a two year period.

In the fall of 1995 the Alberta government held a plebiscite on dual marketing, on giving farmers the choice to market their grain in any way they saw fit, either through the wheat board or on their own. The result of that plebiscite was that 66 per cent were in favour of giving farmers a choice in barley marketing and 62 per cent in wheat. The results were clear.

I have heard the minister of agriculture and others saying it was not a fair plebiscite. To heck it was not a fair plebiscite. I voted in that plebiscite. I took part in the debate on that plebiscite. The only thing that was not fair about it was that my money, the money I paid to keep the wheat board operating with every bushel of grain I sell, although I sell very little through the board anymore because I do not find it profitable, and all the money spent by farmers on the board, what did the wheat board do? It sent all of its best sales people out to the meetings to tell farmers that change was not good for them, that mama government should control marketing their grain. It sent its best sales people, and they were good, top notch sales people. I was at some of those meetings. However, they failed. Farmers clearly want the right to sell their grain.

As far as I am concerned, the issue has been decided in Alberta. The farmers have spoken and the Alberta government has spoken. The issue is over and done. We still have to decide in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as to whether farmers should be given the choice and freedom to market their grain as they see fit.

That is what this motion would do. It would give farmers right across the country the freedom to market their own grain, the product they put their money and sweat into. This motion will give them that choice.

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1996, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 is designed to implement income tax conventions that have already been signed with Russia, South Africa, Tanzania, India and Ukraine.

Tax treaties such as these have two main objectives: first, the avoidance of double taxation; and second, the prevention of tax evasion or avoidance. Since they contain taxation rules that are different from the provisions of the Income Tax Act they only become effective if an act giving them precedence over domestic legislation is passed by Parliament.

The conventions and protocols in the act are patterned on the model double taxation convention prepared by the OECD. This act sets out a system of taxation protocols and conventions with nations that previously had no such conventions with Canada.

The act is designed to eliminate double taxation whereby an individual is taxed on income in his home country as well as in another country, and to restrict the ability to evade taxes by shifting income into other localities. The act reproduces tax conventions already signed with Russia, South Africa, Tanzania, India and Ukraine.

Reform supports horizontal and vertical equity, and removing the ability to evade or avoid taxes is in keeping with this philosophy. The act basically simplifies the system of taxation as it applies to resident individuals and corporations in Canada as well as owners of income producing assets in Canada or one of the signatory states. Therefore, I am pleased on behalf of the Reform Party to support this bill.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, June 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

As members before me have explained, the bill takes four acts and puts them together into one. We would think this would result in cost savings in administration. The departmental briefing claimed that putting the four programs together would result in administrative savings of somewhat over $1 million. We will have to wait to see whether those savings actually come about, but I do not have a lot of faith that there will be savings in administration.

I have a concern with the administration of the bill. If the record of the government in administering its programs does not improve, the administration of the program will be a disaster. We could look, for example, to the Crow payout program that was put in place by last year's budget. Under that program 75 per cent of the money to be paid out should have been paid out by the end of January. We are still not up to the 75 per cent expected payout level. If the record on the administration of the programs does not improve, the program will be of little use to farmers.

When it comes to advance payments it is absolutely necessary for the administration to be simple and done very quickly, or it really defeats the purpose of getting cash into the hands of farmers in the fall before they can actually sell the crops. It is often a problem to sell crops in the fall to get cash to pay bills. The purpose of the program is to get the money into the hands of farmers more quickly. If the administration is slowed, as I suspect it might be just looking at the record of the government, it is a step backward. We will just have to wait to see what happens in that regard.

The bill touches on changing the Canadian Wheat Board. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is currently administered by the Canadian Wheat Board. With this change the program would become one of the four programs under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

We need an awful lot more than just tinkering with the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I remember back to the time when I was a very little tyke in around 1960. After harvest started my father, finally having grain to sell and desperately needing some money for school supplies and other things, lamented the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board did not provide a quick enough avenue for marketing his grain. Even back then, 35 or 36 years ago, he wanted a choice either to ship through the wheat board or on his own somewhere else so he could get the cash when he wanted it and when he needed it. That was denied him then. Here it is 35 years later and still western Canadian farmers are being denied what obviously should be theirs: the right to market their grain in any way they see fit whether it be through the Canadian Wheat Board or on their own in some other fashion.

It seems to be absurd. It is so absurd I cannot understand it. Last Thursday and Friday I was campaigning in the Hamilton East byelection. I went to a door where someone asked about the Canadian Wheat Board and why farmers were not given the ability to market on their own. Even the people in the heart of Canadian cities are finally understanding how ridiculous the situation is when farmers cannot market their own grain, their own product. It is time some serious action was taken and not only tinkering.

I remember when I left university in 1974 that there was talk in the agricultural faculty about changing the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the Canadian Wheat Board so that farmers would have more control. The wheat board was causing problems even then. The students at the university could see a need for change. Starting back then, 30-plus years ago, I actively started campaigning for changing the Canadian Wheat Board. I was not for getting rid of it and I am still not for getting rid of it. I want to change it so that it is accountable to farmers and farmers have the option to ship around it.

Over all these years many of my friends and people I got to know have been very actively campaigning for change to the Canadian Wheat Board, and there has been no significant change whatsoever.

Finally, this past year the Government of Alberta took the initiative to stand with farmers against the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. A fair plebiscite was held and a very high percentage of commercial farmers turned out. The result was overwhelming. Two-thirds of farmers voted to support the removing of the monopoly on barley marketing and 62 per cent voted to support the ending of the monopoly on wheat.

The farmers in Alberta have decided. They have made up their minds and the case is closed. It is now just a matter of the agriculture minister carrying out what these farmers want. They know it is their right. They voted for the ability to market either through the board or on their own.

Still the agriculture minister fights by throwing out these minor changes to the Canadian Wheat Board which do not solve the

problem. He keeps saying: "Wait for the results of the marketing panel". I can tell the House what the results are going to be. They will be just as I said they were going to be before the panel began. The panel will not lead to changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that farmers want. There will be tinkering and there will be talk of substantial change. Still the wheat board monopoly on wheat will not be ended as a result of this grain marketing panel.

It is a sad thing. Why should Canadian farmers be denied the right to market their product? They raise it. Nobody else pays the cost of putting the crop in, the sweat and the work it takes to seed and carry the crop through until harvest and then harvest that crop. Nobody else takes the incredible risks that farmers take to produce a crop.

The government does not take risks for farmers, so why on earth are they being denied the right, and it is a right, to market their crops the way they see fit. It is time we got beyond the tinkering.

There will come a time when farmers will be so upset and frustrated by the lack of action that they will say: "Get rid of board. We do not want any part of it anymore".

Why will the minister not act before that happens and head off the complete elimination of the board? I do not believe that is what the majority of farmers want. They want the right to either market through the board or on their own. They want a choice. What other industry does not have that choice? I cannot think of one. What is the hold up? Why the resistance? Does it have something to do with what is going on inside the Canadian Wheat Board? Is there something going on inside the board which is not open to access to information? I have applied through access to information many times to get information about the Canadian Wheat Board. I cannot get it. Is that why? I cannot answer that.

The agriculture minister had better act on this quickly or the Canadian Wheat Board will cease to exist. I think that would be too bad.

[Income Tax Budget Amendment Act, June 17th, 1996]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before you make your decision on the amendment. If there is any doubt on the acceptability of the amendment I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 568, which states:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.

This omnibus bill deals with various tax acts including the Income Tax Act and the Canada Shipping Act. The registration of ships under foreign flag is in the shipping act which the bill amends. It is a matter of the Income Tax Act which the bill also amends. The bill deals with the closing of a tax loophole. I refer to the section of the bill that addresses the family trust issue. Flying flags of convenience is but another loophole of the rich that needs to be addressed.

The government should not go ahead with this bill but come forward with a bill that addresses all loopholes and the flags of convenience issue in particular.

I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 733:

There are limitations on the types of amendments that can be moved on third reading. They must be relevant to the bill which they seek to amend.

My amendment is relevant to the Income Tax Act and the Canada Shipping Act which the bill seeks to amend. The citation goes further and says that the amendment:

-should not contradict the principle of the bill as adopted on second reading.

The bill addresses a major controversial loophole of the rich, that of the family trust. My amendment addresses a loophole of the rich as well. As I mentioned earlier my amendment addresses acts that are covered in the bill.

Citation 670 of Beauchesne's outlines some criteria for a reasoned amendment. Section 2 of the citation states:

It may not propose an alternative scheme.

My amendment does not do this. In fact I want to expand on the closing of tax loopholes for the rich. Citation 670(5) of Beauchesne's states:

It may express opinions as to any circumstance connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill-

While we are looking at the Canada Shipping Act and the Income Tax, we should be looking at the issue of flying flags of convenience and close that loophole for the rich and powerful.

The amendment is in order because it relates to the bill. Yet it will open the debate on the issue of legally avoiding paying taxes. It may be legal but it certainly is not pro-Canadian. It is a loophole that must be looked at in the same light as the family trust issue.

It is shameful that some people in the country are willing to reap the benefits that are-

[Income Tax Budget Amendment Act, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on Bill C-36, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

First I will talk about the Liberal government and what it proposes in budgetary measures which this bill will enact. Second I will talk about what Reform has proposed in the area of taxation and what its members will do when they become the government.

Three months ago I remember the finance minister saying to loud applause in his budget speech: "We are not raising personal taxes. We are not raising corporate taxes. We are not raising excise taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes". I do not think many

Canadians really believed what they were being told in that speech. A little later today I will go through a list of tax increases.

The Minister of Finance seems to expect Canadians to thank him for appearing to hold the line on tax increases. I find it appalling that he should think it is good enough to be able to say what he said in the House, even if it were accurate, which it is not. It is appalling that he would think it would appease and please Canadians just to say, even if it were accurate, that there would be no tax increases.

Canadians are looking for more than no tax increases. They are looking for fewer taxes. Canadians have been faced with tax increase after tax increase for the past 30 years. There has been an over 1,000 per cent increase in taxes in the past 30 years of Liberal and Conservative governments. Now Canadians are looking for fewer taxes. Their personal income tax rate is the second highest of any country in the G-7, second only to Germany. That is appalling.

Between 1985 and 1993, the federal income tax bill of the average Canadian family has increased dramatically. Canadians simply did not have the stomach before this budget for tax increases.

The finance minister chose to have no explicit increases but instead to try to sneak them in through the back door. In just a minute, I will go through the list of tax increases that occurred in spite of the finance minister saying that there were none.

First I would like to summarize the list I have before me. This is a list of tax increases for the 1994-95 tax year through to the 1998-99 tax year. These are lists, year by year, of tax increases that have been presented by the government and the finance minister.

In 1994-95 the list adds up to $575 million. In 1995-96 it gets worse. The total tax increase was $2.3 billion. The finance minister boasted that year that there were really no substantial tax increases and how many times more the cuts were than the tax increases.

In 1996-97 the tax increases add up to $3.1 billion. In 1997-98, just through the budgets that this finance minister has put in place, the tax increases will be $3.2 billion. This will be more taken out of the pockets of Canadians. That is unacceptable.

The budgets of the finance minister even go as far ahead as 1998-99 and beyond. Already in 1998-99, just from past budgets, the finance minister has announced over $400 million in new taxes. We have a couple of budgets to go until we actually get to 1998-99.

The finance minister preaches that he is against tax increases and yet the list of tax increases is too lengthy for me to go through in the time I have to present my speech today. It is unacceptable.

I will go through the tax increases that have been put in place by this year's budget, a budget which was kicked off by the finance minister saying to loud applause: "We are not raising personal taxes. We are not raising corporate taxes. We are not raising the excise taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes".

I am going to talk about how the finance minister did not raise taxes in this year's budget. First, since the Liberals came to power they have squeezed an extra $9 billion to $11 billion or more out of the pockets of taxpayers. In the 1996 budget no explicit taxes were put in place, at least none that Canadians could see easily. There are none certainly along the line of the gas tax increase that we all saw at the pump last year. As far as that goes, the finance minister was accurate. However, I believe that Canadians expect more openness and accuracy from a finance minister than that.

With the tax increases that have been put in place, the government will raise $145 million in the next three years by reducing the credit given for investment in labour sponsored, venture capital corporations by reducing the contribution limit to $3,500. This was in a year when the finance minister said no tax increases.

A number of changes to the RRSP rules took place that will also yield revenue for the treasury by reducing the age of mandatory withdrawal to 69 from 71. The government will raise close to $100 million by the year 2000. No tax increases? Figure that one out.

Further, the government announced it would henceforth deny deductibility of the RRSP fees which would save another $10 million. It also froze the RRSP contribution limit at $13,500 per year until 2003. The government is sending conflicting messages. On the one hand, it expects Canadians to take more responsibility for their retirement, but the government and the finance minister have said again and again that the Canada pension plan is not on sound footing.

The finance minister in the budget this year ended universality of old age security, something that he criticized Reform for proposing during the last election campaign by saying his government would never do that. However, this government has ended universality. And it ended universality at a much lower income level than Reform ever proposed.

Holding the line on the limit of RRSP contributions makes it very difficult for Canadians who are trying to look after their retirement because they know they really cannot count on old age security and the Canada pension plan the way this government has been operating. They know that the government does not have the resolve to hold the line on spending, eliminate the deficit and then start reducing taxes.

The government will begin taxing non-residents on the income they receive from outside the country. This will yield $30 million in taxes in a year where there are no tax increases.

The government plans to spend $50 million to step up the battle against the underground economy. Ottawa expects to gain $185 million over the next three years by this move. Perhaps the government should take a good look at what causes the underground economy, the ever growing tax grab of the government, the ever increasing amount of money the government takes from the pay cheques of Canadians.

I was in Hamilton East on Thursday and Friday of last week. The biggest complaint of the people of that constituency is that while in many cases they earn quite an attractive salary, their take home salary is quite another matter. There are simply too many deductions from their pay cheques for taxes and other payroll deductions which are getting larger and larger. There is really no end in sight as long as this government is in power.

The Minister of Finance also announced the striking of a technical committee designed to study the business income taxation act and suggests measures that could be used to encourage job creation and investment. It is expected that this is simply window dressing, designed to offer the appearance that the government is actually doing something on the job creation front.

How much will this committee cost? Looking at what has happened in the past, the committee will cost between $500,000 and $5 million. That is a lot of money for a committee that is a sham. The record of the government of heeding the advice of committees that have travelled across the country is very poor. Often the government announces the changes that are going to take place even before the committee has reported. Then why is it wasting the time and spending this kind of money on the committee?

The tax grabs in the area of business taxation are fairly innocuous when we look at the past history but they are still substantial. As was expected, the government extended the profitability tax on banks yielding about $65 million over the next two years. Although banks already pay about $4 billion annually in taxes, looking at 1993, the profit tax is another measure to force the most profitable in society to pay more and more.

Most Canadians will not be too upset by the banks having to pay more tax. They are not going to be upset by a tax on high profits in the banking industry. But the precedent has been set. Will this tax next show up on convenience stores that earn a high profit? The precedents for an extra tax on high profits has been set. Where will it come down next? Will the corner store owner be next? This is a question Canadians must ask. The government is determined to grab money any way it can.

I will continue through the list of grabs that have come about as a result of the last budget. The GST was essentially a non-issue in the budget. But the government has still not kept its promise to scrap the GST, although most Canadians would be happy if it simply did what was promised in the red book, to replace it with something else.

Sheila Copps, the member who resigned her seat because the government had not kept its promise to get rid of the GST, is now fighting for her political career in a byelection. Canadians have not forgotten that the GST was not replaced, was not scrapped and will not be scrapped. I am not sure they will be satisfied with having it replaced. We will wait to see whether Canadians are willing to tolerate that.

Something I heard in Hamilton during the byelection campaign was that Canadians expect politicians to keep the promises they make. The GST promise could well come back to haunt the government in the next election and beyond.

The government has nothing to brag about on the tax front in the budget. Not only did it not offer tax relief. It raised taxes even though Canadians made it known they were sick and tired of tax increases.

The budget affects taxation in an indirect way as well. By backing off from fiscal restraint the government has signed a death warrant for tax relief over at least the next three years. The finance minister and the government did not show the strength it would take to balance the budget very quickly. The finance minister still has no plan to balance the budget. Canadians can say with certainty that there will not be any meaningful tax decrease for some time down the road.

I will talk in a while about what would have happened had Reform been elected in 1993 and had our zero in three plan been put in place at that time.

To conclude my remarks with respect to what the government has done in the budget, in short the government has offered no tax relief. It has buried the hope of any tax relief in the foreseeable future. It has slapped Canadian taxpayers in the face by expecting gratitude for not openly raising taxation, even though it is clear that it has increased taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget. That is what the Liberals have done.

What would the Reform Party have done had it gained power in 1993? Reform campaigned on a zero in three plan. It was a detailed and sound plan to balance the budget in three years. What would that have meant? We would have been in the third year of the plan right now. Not only would Canadians have known the budget would be balanced by the end of this fiscal year. We would have put in place at least a token tax decrease, which Canadians are so desperately asking for.

Canadians need to have more take home pay. They are tired of an ever increasing rate of deduction on their paycheques. They are tired of salaries which sound good ending up being too little for their families to live on comfortably. If our zero in three plan had been put in place by the finance minister they would have been happy. They could have been offered tax relief this year, something which Canadians desperately want.

What have Reformers done recently in terms of tax decreases? I will explain four resolutions which were passed at our assembly in Vancouver by Reform members from across Canada. The finance minister should be listening to these resolutions because they reflect not only what Reform delegates at the assembly want but what Canadians across the country want.

The first resolution states:

Resolved that the Reform Party reaffirm its commitment for the introduction of a simple, visible and flat rate of taxation.

Canadians want not only a lower tax rate but a simpler tax system. This resolution was ratified by 92 per cent of the delegates.

The second one states:

Resolved that the Reform Party remove the GST when a simple, visible and flat rate system of taxation is introduced.

We made the pledge that at the time our flat tax system was in place the GST would be removed.

The third one states:

Resolved that the Reform Party supports a reduction of the total burden of taxation, while recognizing that tax cuts must be done within our existing deficit reduction plan.

We are saying we can offer tax relief but we have to do it knowing we still have to balance the budget very quickly, now, within two years. This resolution was passed by 95 per cent of the delegates.

The fourth resolution talks directly about taxation and states:

Resolved that the Reform Party supports tax relief for families and married couples with one income earner.

This is a matter of making the system fairer. The finance minister talked quite a bit in this year's budget about making the system fairer. Yet in important areas like that one he did not do the job. Canadians really expect fairness, particularly when it comes to families being treated fairly in the system, and they are not being treated so now. That is what Reform has proposed for some time and that is what Reform will do.

I will end with those comments although I would like to propose an amendment. I move:

That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canadian Shipping Act, since it does not seek to address the issue known as flying flags of convenience which allows Canadian ship owners to avoid paying Canadian taxes.

After the question and answer session I would like to rise on a point of order to explain why I believe the amendment is in order.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member commented on the lack of due process given to important legislation that comes before this House. He talked about the persistent use of time allocation, closure and the fact that legislation like this comes up at the end of the session when very little time is allowed for debate. The hon. member is absolutely accurate in presenting this information. Why does he think this happens? Why does the government use time allocation so often and prevents important issues from being discussed and properly debated, not only in this House but right across the country?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

That is what you guys do all the time.

[Interprovincial Trade, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday Premiers Mike Harris and Lucien Bouchard signed an agreement which will reduce trade barriers between their provinces. This agreement will open up the bidding process on $16 billion in government procurement contracts.

It seems a little odd that even a separatist government in Quebec is more committed to interprovincial free trade than this federal government. Liberal and Tory governments have sat back and allowed trade barriers to build which cost Canadians between $6 billion and $10 billion a year when the Canadian Constitution clearly states that it is the obligation of the federal government to make sure this does not happen.

With the exception of the ever-increasing interest payments on the ever-increasing debt, the removal of internal trade barriers is the most important step the government could take to get Canadians back to work.

Instead of surrendering to high unemployment, the Prime Minister should follow the example of his provincial counterparts, announce a date for deficit elimination and move to reduce barriers to internal trade.