April 2, 1998

NDP

Angela Vautour

New Democratic Party

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to talk about Bill C-28. I think this bill addresses several issues that are very important for Canadians today, and I believe it is important to discuss them.

It deals with taxes, health care, education, social services and social assistance. We have to say that this is a rather complicated bill, and this is probably intentional, to ensure that all kinds of things will go unnoticed, as my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois pointed out. There are certainly some questionable clauses in this bill.

I believe that it is very important that Canadians understand that this bill is extremely complicated, but in another way it is also quite simple. The bottom line is that we in this country still have problems with health care, education and employment, and nothing in this bill will solve these problems. It is important to talk about these issues.

On the flight to Ottawa this week, I was sitting beside a lady from the Fredericton area and I asked her where she was going. She was coming here to Ottawa for an eye operation. The waiting period in Halifax was 15 months, but she could have this operation right away in Ottawa.

I ask myself the question: What is the difference from one province to another in terms of waiting lists? I know that, in the Atlantic provinces, there are very serious problems with hospital services, as well as with health care in senior homes such as the Villa Providence in Shediac. Seniors certainly do not have the services they need in these institutions.

They are short-staffed. Their employees are totally exhausted. As in many other seniors home, several staff members are on extended sick leave because they are exhausted. There is just so much a person can do between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Too much is being asked of these workers and our relatives in these places are suffering because of it. It is important that this be pointed out.

We are told that money is being reinvested in health care, but that is not true. Transfers were cut drastically and people have to be reminded of that. That is the truth. The only thing the government did was not cut the $1.5 billion they had said they would cut. That is the only thing they did.

We are getting even less money than we did previously and there is nothing in this bill to reassure the people who have to wait four or five hours before they can see a doctor or the children who have to wait hours before someone can take care of their broken limbs. These are not imaginary problems; they are real and we keep hearing about them every day. We often hear about people who have to wait or even pay to get a cyst removed, etc.

On the television program This Hour Has 22 Minutes , there was a very good sketch where they said that if you are diagnosed with cancer, you will get your $100 back. That is so sad. How many people will not get their first $100 back and will still get cancer? Why? Because we have a government that took the word care out of health care.

I am also saddened to hear the opposition parties say that the United States have a better health system than we do. We should be careful with this kind of statement, because people in the United States do not have medicare. Health care is for people with money only. This should be taken into consideration when comparing health care in both countries.

Even if I do find fault with our present system, we still have a system which NDP members are striving to preserve because it is important and it should remain as a national system so that the same standard of health care should be available to all Canadians. The ability to pay should not be a consideration as far as health care is concerned. A patient who may have cancer should not have to pay for surgery.

It is about time we take a hard look at where we are headed in this country, because we are in a sad situation. Many people cannot get an appointment because doctors are overworked. We have the same situation in hospitals. The number of beds is down, but people still get sick. And the less health care we have, the sicker they will get, and the more beds and the more nurses we will need.

In the Moncton area, right now, 300 nurses work only part time. This is a problem. We should be realistic about this situation. First of all, people deserve a little bit of security. Bill C-28 does not deal with these issues. We have 730,000 people on welfare, and the government is telling us it has put in the system $1.5 billion more. It has not. It has simply cancelled cuts that were supposed to be made. This is the important thing to remember. The government has been cutting right and left for a long time.

We have seen in the last few weeks that if we have 730,000 people on welfare, it is largely because of the cuts in employment insurance. In high unemployment areas, we should be aware that there are no jobs, and that whatever jobs there are are part time jobs at $5.50 an hour.

I meet women who have worked for 25 years in fish processing plants and who earn $5.75 an hour. That is sad. How many of us could live on just $5.75 an hour? Not many, I think. And yet this is what we expect the poor in Canada to live on.

The places where there are paying jobs, like the employment centre in Bouctouche, where at least three or four full time employees were earning $13 or $14 an hour, they close. These are jobs our children might have had eventually. They are also services that are no longer available to the public. Now people come to my office because they no longer have access to the employment centre. Members of Parliament who want to look after their constituents are the ones who have to deal with these cases and settle the problems. That is what we see.

It is sad to see them continually closing down businesses in a region where the unemployment rate this winter was 50% and where jobs are replaced by seasonal employment, which pays $5.50 or $6.25 an hour. And the provincial maximum is $6.25.

These people cannot live on $5.50 an hour anymore than I can. I cannot expect them to either. This is the sort of thing we have to deal with.

It is no different in education. There is a problem here, too. Sure, our young people can borrow. I have visits from young people who are $40,000 in debt. They have been out of university for two years and they are still looking for work. They move. They leave. As I was saying the other day, half of the people in Calgary are from New Brunswick. It is sad, but that is what is happening.

So we have to look carefully at just what bills like C-28 have to offer. It is not very useful indeed. It may be beneficial to some Liberal members, but it does nothing for those who suffer, for the sick, for the growing number of children who live in poverty because of the cuts made by the Liberals and the Conservatives before them—sometimes we have a tendency to put all the blame on the Liberals, but the party that was in power before them did not do anything good either. It certainly made its share of cuts.

Social assistance is a serious problem in our region. Sometimes we do not want to talk about it, but in our part of the country, it is a reality. Those who do not have jobs live on welfare. Sometimes, when they are not eligible for welfare, they tell us they want to kill themselves.

There is money in this country. Lots of money. It is not true that there is no money. The problem is that governments have decided they will no longer help the poor in our country.

The statistics are clear: the poor are poorer than ever and the rich are richer than ever. And the middle class is paying for both. The middle class is beginning to disappear. I think the rich were sick and tired of seeing middle class people sitting next to them in the same restaurants. It was becoming a problem, a threat.

The middle class and the small and medium size business sector are constantly under attack. The ACOA, for instance, will lose one third of its funding. The government is cutting social programs in Atlantic Canada and it is also taking away the only agency that can help small and medium size businesses. We are beginning to wonder. Will the government totally abandon Atlantic Canada?

A couple of us were elected and we will see to it that Atlantic Canada is not abandoned. There is no job creation, and that is the main problem in our country. If the government did its job and made sure that Canadians had decent jobs with decent salaries, we would not have the problems we are experiencing today.

People are being replaced by machines, well-paying jobs are being destroyed, and then we wonder why there is a high level of unemployment. Do you want to see what high unemployment is? Come live in the Atlantic provinces, or in any rural area in the country. Then you will see what high unemployment is all about.

It is not true that the figure is 9% for Kent county, for Albert county, for Cap-Pelé or Port Elgin. I am sure it is the same in many places throughout the country, in all provinces. We will have to start by going to see how things are in the regions and then doing some long term planning. That is what I would like to see in this House, a government that says “OK. We will have to go to the rural regions to find our why there is such high unemployment. What is not being done right? What have we done wrong? What needs to be done?”

There are factories in our region that need a five to seven year program to ensure that people can be self-supporting. There is no such program. Programs must be created in this country to fit these regions, instead of waiting for us in the regions to change to fit the programs. That is not how it is done. We are serious about addressing the problem of lack of work in the rural communities.

In my riding people are, again this year, having to live for three months without any income whatsoever. And why is that? Because they cannot draw employment insurance. This is serious. Nobody in our region can survive for three months with no money coming in without the danger of getting into a real bind. There is a surplus of close to $20 billion in the employment insurance fund, and yet these people are expected to survive with no income. Ridiculous.

This is a great pity. All this is a real eye opener for a newcomer to this place like myself, as we see bills appear that can work to the advantage of certain companies in this country. That is a sad thing.

I have met with young people and I have asked them “Is there any tax reform that can help you?” They tell me no. I have a young fellow working for me who is way over his head in debt. There was nothing in the last budget, or the one before that, to help him out. Nothing at all. In fact things are getting worse. For 10 years our students will get some assistance, but only 7% of them, while 90% of them will be left out, and there is nothing at all for them between now and the year 2000.

If the government does not start introducing bills and promising to make job creation the number one priority in this country, we will keep on having this problem of young people graduating and unable to find work. There are people who had jobs but lost them. Money is no longer circulating. It is a problem

It is not true that the economy is so wonderful. Come and live in my riding for a while and you will see that things are not that rosy. Our SMBs are trying, however. We are trying to develop them, but we need help. They cannot simply be told that they will have to go it alone now.

All Canadians should have the same rights, whether they are rich or poor, men, women or children. Everyone has the right to food on the table, a roof over their head, clothes to wear, and an education. These are not privileges, although it is starting to look like it. The way governments are operating, a post-secondary education is becoming a privilege. Imagine.

Then they have the nerve to say that companies cannot find trained students to work for them. Something is not right. Once again, I think it is a lack of planning. One has only to think of how many people are on unemployment insurance, which is now called employment insurance. They have tried to change how we think of it, but it is not employment insurance. When people go to an employment centre for unemployment insurance, they are not offered a job. That is not what happens.

The government has tried to convince Canadians otherwise, but I am sorry. And I will not call it employment insurance till people go to employment centres with their little pink slip to find a job there. There would go to these employment centres in search of a job. It is not the case at the moment. People get unemployment insurance because there are no jobs.

The name may be changed over and over again, but no one can convince me or the people that this is employment insurance, because this is not true. We must endeavour to put these people back to work.

We must also be realistic. We have to recognize the impact this reform will have in areas with a high unemployment rate. It is sad to see the situation young people are in. There is no planning. We need long term planning. We need financial assistance for groups willing to invest their time developing our natural resources, whether in fisheries or forestry.

There is potential in our region, hard working people. There are hard working people throughout the country, in regions where the unemployment rate is high. Professionals are supposed to be working to help these people. Where are they? Who is listening when we say we need these programs? I must say that we do not hear much, because I read in the newspaper that ACOA will lose one third of its funding. The government is cutting on both ends.

The same thing is happening in the fisheries. We know that we must ask ourselves some questions about the conservation of lobster and cod. Who are the people who are making decisions that are causing so many problems?

Obviously, the New Democratic Party opposes Bill C-28. I look forward to having the opportunity to debate in the House something that will help people. Perhaps, for once, the Liberal Party will finally give priority to the poor and the destitute and the small businesses that are hurting in Canada.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
BQ

René Laurin

Bloc Québécois

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from the NDP to elaborate on her view of the way the federal government is treating the provinces.

She said in her speech that everybody in this great country should be entitled to food, shelter and clothing, and I believe she is right.

We in Quebec, while we agree, express it differently because we believe it is more meaningful for people. Instead of feeding them we prefer to give them the opportunity to earn what they need to buy food and clothes, and put a roof over their heads.

There is an old Chinese saying I believe goes like this: “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”

What the federal government is doing with its subsidies and its encroachment into fields of provincial jurisdiction is feeding individuals and giving them something for clothing and housing. It is helping them in every area, while provinces would rather educate them and show them how to earn those things and become self-sufficient.

By making the provinces poorer, the federal government can then boast to private citizens: “Look, what the provinces are unable to give you, we are giving to you now. We are putting food on your table.”

But it is a lot more meaningful for people to be able to earn their keep than to have the federal government provide for them and make them dependent on its largesse. Would fishermen in New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces and their children not rather have the money to improve their fishing methods than be given subsidies to be able to put food on the table and a roof over their heads?

I would like to hear the member's point of view on this to know if people in the Atlantic provinces and people in Quebec are on the same wavelength.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
NDP

Angela Vautour

New Democratic Party

Ms. Angela Vautour

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

As I said, the problem is they are handing money out but without any planning. Does this mean the planning should be up to the provinces? This would be a problem in New Brunswick because the money does not always go where it should.

Where I come from, we were always afraid to give Frank McKenna money because all of it might be used on roads, while health care would be left out.

This is the problem: how the money will be managed once in the province. I feel there is not enough control and I think it is also the case federally. That is why I say we need programs that accommodate people, and not programs where people have to accommodate the programs. That is why nothing is working and there are so many bankruptcies. No one wants to listen.

Sometimes loans are denied to small businesses or organizations looking to create year round work because they do not meet the criteria. Look what that does. A $45,000 loan might create 25 permanent jobs but the bank has to go by the criteria. That is a problem and it is one at every level.

That is what the expression bottom up suggests. Does it mean that the province will be in charge of managing the money? Will the Kent economic commission manage the whole thing? Someone has to do it, but first we need to have programs.

We talk about prevention. People would rather earn a living than to always take money from the government, because, at some point, they no longer know why they should get up in the morning. People get depressed in winter when they are out of work. They always look forward to spring when they can resume working.

Ever since the Liberals were elected, they have gone after seasonal workers as if they were all lazy people. When the Prime Minister came to my riding to get elected, he said he was going to take care of everything. He would help the unemployed. He came back here and said: “They all live in shacks, they are drunk all the time and unemployed”. That is what he said.

We are the ones who elected him. But even worse, we believed him.

I find it sad that the Prime Minister, who chose to run in a region with the worst unemployment rate in Canada and made promises to the voters, came back here, to Ottawa, and said, as we found out later by reading the newspaper, that everyone was living in shacks, drunk all the time and on the dole. What an insult! Believe me, the next time they tried to get one of theirs elected, voters were more wary. That era is over. The people back home will not put up with this any longer.

I think it is time for the Liberals to start thinking about this. Nova Scotia has sent them a message and I am sure New Brunswick will do the same. I hope this will keep up, because we have a problem in this country.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF

Monte Solberg

Reform

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address once again Bill C-28. We are speaking to the amendment in this case.

The first priority or perhaps at least a very important priority of any legislator is to ensure that we do our best along with our colleagues to create a foundation on which we can build a strong economy in this country. I know colleagues would agree with that.

I think we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation that passes through this House does indeed do that and contributes in some way to doing that. Sadly I do not believe that Bill C-28 really does that, certainly not in the current context. I think Canada's economic foundation is crumbling and cracking for a number of reasons.

First of all we believe very strongly that Canada's $583.2 billion debt is just about out of control. We know that our taxes are far too high. We also know that we spend billions on wasteful programs and that spending is largely unfocused. It does not go to the things that are priorities with Canadians.

Those are some of the reasons we oppose not only this legislation but a number of the initiatives of the government. It simply is not focusing on the things that are most important or doing the things that will prepare a foundation upon which to build a strong, healthy, sustainable economy.

Let me speak specifically to some of these concerns. I mentioned a minute ago that our foundation was crumbling and cracking. One of the reasons for that is the situation we had with our debt of $583.2 billion.

What hon. colleagues around the House will know is that we spend about $45 billion a year just to pay the interest on the debt. It is an unbelievable amount of money. It is the largest cheque the finance minister will write every year. It is a lot more than we spend on employment insurance and old age security combined. It is far bigger than that amount. It is a tremendous amount of money.

I point out that for average families it means they have to pay taxes that are $6,000 higher than they would be if they did not have pay that interest. Average families have to pay $6,000 in taxes just to pay their share of interest on the debt. It is an unbelievable amount of money. If we compare that with our friends south of the border, their debt, as huge as it is, is about 40% less per capita than the Canadian debt.

It is a staggering amount. That is about 70% of the gross domestic product. If we combine it with what the debt of the provinces it is close to 100% of the gross domestic product. It is one of the worst levels of debt in the world. It is a huge problem.

Bill C-28 does nothing to address it. Nor did the budget which recently came done. Not only are we saddling the present generation and all the people who are struggling to make the economy move with this debt but we are saddling the next generation, the people who are yet to be born. It is wrong. It is immoral to cast a huge burden of debt on to their shoulders before they are even born. These people will not get a chance to benefit from the goods and services that were purchased with that credit. However they will be saddled with the debt. Reformers oppose Bill C-28 for that reason. We think the lack of a plan to deal with debt is a very serious omission.

I want to make an argument that is maybe a little less academic, a little less abstract, a little more practical and important in present terms with respect to the need to deal with the problem of debt.

Not very long ago in Asia we saw a dramatic meltdown of its economies. Some of the currencies saw a devaluation in the order of 55%, a tremendous devaluation. There are tremendous economic problems in Asia.

The result was that area of the world, which represents about one-third of the entire economy of the world, saw money flee from there to get away from the uncertain economic conditions and go to other parts of the world. It went to the places where the countries had strong foundations, which is precisely what we are talking about, a strong economic foundation.

Did it come to Canada, one of the countries that should be one of the richest in the world given our vast array of natural resources? No, it did not. It went to the United States. That money went to the United States, our biggest trading partner, with the result that we saw our dollar fall relative to the American dollar, which meant that we had to pay more for all kinds of imports.

The way the Bank of Canada reacted to it also hurt Canadians. The Bank of Canada, in a effort to shore up the dollar, raised interest rates which hurt all Canadians. That is a direct impact of high levels of debt on ordinary Canadians. When that kind of situation exists, in a sense it is a form of taxation on Canadians. It means they have less money for the things they care about doing, the things most people and families consider to be important like buying groceries, paying the mortgage, paying the rent, paying the car loan and setting aside some money for retirement and putting the kids through university. However, we were denied that to some degree because of what happened as a direct result of having a high level of debt.

Let me again say that Bill C-28 does not deal with debt or present any plan to deal with the debt at a time when Canada is in a very precarious situation with respect to its debt. Therefore we oppose the bill for that reason.

Let me speak a bit more directly to the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois which deals with the issue of taxes. Bill C-28 is an omnibus bill which deals with a number of things that have to do with the Income Tax Act. However it concerns Reformers any time a bill amending the Income Tax Act does not do anything on one hand to simplify taxation or on the other hand to lower the level of taxes Canadians have to pay. Sadly Bill C-28 does not do that.

Specifically in Bill C-28 is a clause that could potentially confer some benefits on Canadian shipping companies. The Bloc Quebecois has raised this amendment because it is concerned the finance minister, who sponsored the bill and who has interests in a shipping company, could potentially have some benefit from clause 241 in Bill C-28.

The finance minister and some Liberal members have suggested that although the finance minister may have sponsored the bill he did so unwittingly and did not seek to profit from the legislation. I accept that because I think it is correct. I do not think he would do that on purpose.

I want to set that whole argument aside for a moment. I think there is a more important principle at stake when we talk about a situation where Canada's finance minister has to shelter assets offshore because taxes in Canada are too high. It is one of the great ironies in the country today and it is almost unremarked upon by the media. Truly it is a great irony when the finance minister of the Government of Canada, through completely legal means, has done very well for himself. In order to do some of the things he has done, he had to have his assets registered offshore in other regimes where taxes are more favourable. He is not alone in doing this. Many other companies do this.

Members of the House should reflect on why it is necessary for companies in Canada to do that if they want to succeed. It raises some questions. It raises a very important question that is brought home to regular Canadians every day when they sit down to do their books. Taxes are simply too high in Canada today. They are staggering.

We have personal income taxes in Canada today that are 56% higher than the G-7 average. It is much higher than the Americans, the Japanese, the British, the Germans and even the French. We have staggering levels of taxation.

What the government proposed in the recent budget did little to help. All it did was slow down the rate of growth in taxes. When the government brought in its budget, it brought in some measures that introduced tax relief which it talked about in the budget. However, it did not talk about the fact that in the last few months it had raised taxes far more than any tax relief would benefit Canadians through the measures in the budget. Through the Canada pension plan premium increase we will see the largest tax hike in Canadian history. We will see those premiums rise by 73%.

On the other hand, we know that every year a silent tax increase occurs that not many Canadians are aware of. I refer to the phenomenon of bracket creep, a situation where because of the deindexation of the tax system many Canadians automatically are pushed into higher tax brackets every year as a result of cost of living increases that essentially leave them worse off. In fact, bracket creep alone this year will wipe out all the benefit given to people through any of the tax measures introduced in the budget. The tax measures, according to the government's own 1998-99 budget documents, will lower taxes by about $880 million, but bracket creep alone will increase taxes by more than $1 billion. With that measure alone Canadians are worse off.

What does this do to the ordinary Canadian? I want to relate a story. I was in my office on Friday talking with a constituent, a man who is on disability. He is receiving Canada pension plan disability. His name is Lawrence Weston. Mr. Weston said “Please use my example in the House if it suits you”.

He has an income of just over $13,000. He gets a bit of money from workers' compensation as well. He has literally thousands of dollars in expenses because of his medical problems. He is diabetic. He has had a number of surgical operations on his eyes and he is slowly going blind. He cannot work. If he goes to work, if he tries to do anything, his disability income disappears immediately.

He is in a situation where he makes just over $13,000. He still pays about $400 a year in personal income tax in Canada today, even with all his medical expenses. He cannot, believe it or not, take advantage of the disability credit in the income tax system. One almost has to be dead to take advantage of that credit. One probably has to be in the morgue for three days to be able to take advantage of that credit.

I do not know how many people have come into my office, people who are severely disabled and have tried to apply for it but cannot get it. It is virtually impossible to get. Mr. Weston could not get it so he is in a situation now where he has to come up with $400 and does not know how he will do it.

If my friends across the way are truly concerned about people who are simply not making it today, they should start to lower taxes in a meaningful way. Not everybody can, like the finance minister, find tax relief by moving assets offshore. It is not something the rest of us can do.

It does not just end with people like Lawrence Weston. Many other people are in exactly the same position. I received an e-mail the other day from a woman who had just retired as a nurse. It is the same sort of situation. She is complaining about the high level of taxes that she has to pay, a staggering level of taxes. We receive mail all the time. Often in this place I have quoted from letters we have received from people who are just barely making it but still paying all kinds of taxes.

Let us consider for a moment some of the businesses out there. For example, a Canadian Tire franchisee who is trying to make it cannot avoid taxes by all of a sudden flying a flag over the business saying that it is now Bahamian Tire or Panamanian Tire simply to avoid the high level of taxes in this country.

That cannot be done. People would like to do it; donut shop owners would like to be able to do that but cannot. That is left to a few people and luckily the finance minister was able to do that. I do not blame him one bit. He is doing exactly what business people will do if they have a chance to do it. They are trying to find a way to shelter their income. They do not want to pay taxes. Everybody does it. People take advantage of loopholes in the tax system all the time. If we can, we use RRSPs. If they can, they shelter income offshore.

Should we not have a tax regime that draws investment to the country? Should we not have a tax regime that encourages people to come and invest in Canada? My friend, the member for Peace River, pointed out the other day that for the first time ever in the history of Canada Canadians are investing more money outside Canada than foreigners are investing inside Canada.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF
REF

Monte Solberg

Reform

Mr. Monte Solberg

“I wonder why”, says my friend in the back. It is not a mystery to me. Staggering levels of taxation, staggering levels of debt and spending that is unfocused and not priorized are the reasons why.

We must get back to a situation where we shore up the foundation that is crumbling and cracking, and we can do that in a number of ways. First, we start the process of priorizing our spending. We do not waste those precious dollars given to us by taxpayers. We dedicate that money to the things that are important to Canadians.

I can say with all honesty what people in my riding say. Mr. Weston came in the other day and said “we don't want to spend a whole bunch more money but let us focus on the things that are important like health care and higher education”. The government has failed to do that. It is quick to point out with Bill C-28 that it will not cut as much as it initially said it would in areas like health care and higher education. Instead of cutting seven and a half billion dollars it will cut only six billion dollars. I guess we should be thankful for that.

If our friends across the way are doing those things, if they are cutting dramatically in health care, how do they justify increasing spending on things like a television production fund? Is that a priority for Canadians? I do not think so. How do we justify the change of the health minister with respect to tobacco and the hundred million dollars it will cost taxpayers? That sort of money should be used to help people who cannot help themselves.

We do not believe in taking the shotgun approach. We say focus that spending where it does the most good. We think those priorities should be things like health care, higher education, research and development. We think we should have lower taxes. We advocate sweeping tax relief. We believe we should take half of all the surpluses we run after we freeze spending at the current level of $103.5 billion and dedicate it to lowering taxes which will help all Canadians. It will lift 1.3 million low income Canadians right off the income tax rolls. They would not have to pay income tax anymore. I think that is the correct approach.

We believe there must be a program for debt repayment. The government has no program. It says that if there is a little money left over, it will dedicate a little money to paying down the debt. That is not an approach or a plan, it is a whim, a wish. We need a plan. The Reform Party has presented a plan that would pay down the debt substantially over the next 20 years. It would take the debt to GDP ratio down from 70% to 20% and would save $20 billion a year in interest payments. We do have a plan. We have an approach to dealing with this situation.

Reformers believe the private sector does a tremendous amount to produce the wealth in this country. The private sector produces the golden eggs that we see the government scoop up in ever increasing numbers only to turn around and have them bronzed. It has bronzed the golden eggs. It has used them very inefficiently. It takes that money which is better left in the hands of taxpayers and the wealth producers and it uses that money very inefficiently. We say leave that money in the hands of taxpayers. They will do a far better job than politicians and bureaucrats.

For all those reasons I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment and also to vote against Bill C-28.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
LIB

Eleni Bakopanos

Liberal

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the chicken or the egg came first but in any case I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He spoke to the integrity of the Minister of Finance. His views on this issue speak well of the integrity the minister enjoys in this House and among Canadians. One of his colleagues, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, said: “Personally I don't believe so. I think Mr. Martin is a man of integrity. I really do”.

The member noted in his speech that we are not doing enough about the debt. Where has he been during the whole debate we had on the budget? Does he not know we will be lowering the debt in terms of the percentage of GNP and in absolute terms? Is that not how we dealt with the deficit? We have taken measures in the budget to address the issue of the debt. Why does he feel we have not addressed that issue?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I advise the House that we do not use members' names, not in a positive or a negative sense. We do not use them at all in the House. We refer to each other by either ministry or riding.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF

Monte Solberg

Reform

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly evident who the member will be supporting in the leadership race of the Liberal Party in the near future.

I want to say simply that my quarrel is not with the finance minister's integrity. I do not question that at all but I think members would acknowledge that the finance department did make a mistake in not following the procedures, the tradition I guess, of not putting the finance minister in a potential conflict of interest position which is sadly what happened when this legislation was introduced.

The member said the debt would be reduced in terms of the percentage of GDP. While that may look good on paper, it does nothing to help people who are paying $6,000 in taxes just for their share of the interest on the debt. Reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP will not lighten their tax burden.

The finance committee is dominated by the Liberal Party. The recommendations the Liberals made on the finance committee were to set some absolute targets in terms of debt to GDP ratios for the government, something it failed to do when it brought down the budget.

There needs to be a very aggressive program to start to pay down debt. I would simply point out that in recent days the Business Council on National Issues came forward and said it was ridiculous, we need to have a much more aggressive plan than the government currently has for paying down the debt.

If we do not, we leave all Canadians vulnerable in the event of not only international shocks like the Asian crisis but also the impact of a possible cessation crisis that we could face from Quebec.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
LIB

Eleni Bakopanos

Liberal

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not remember making reference to a member's name.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It is no problem. We passed it. We will go on to questions and comments.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF

Val Meredith

Reform

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have developed a communication tool with my constituents. I am extremely pleased that now what seems to be happening is not only are the parents and adults responding with comments but also young people are.

I want to share with the House and with my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat some comments by a young man, a grade 12 student, who attended the forum for young Canadians in Ottawa in March.

“As for the millennium fund, I believe it is a good idea but it reaches so few young Canadians. That money should be put toward eliminating the national debt. The government should not undertake any new major projects, the millennium fund, until the financial situation is resolved. This means that until Canada's debt is gone, no new major projects should be started”. This is from a young man who is going to be faced with taxes. I thought this was unique.

Another point was put before me by another young person, 17 years old. This person would like an answer even though they are not of voting age: “How come the millennium scholarship fund will only help out 6% of post-secondary students and with only $3,000 per year?”

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he is also experiencing this concern by young people when they look at the debt that our generation and the generation before us are leaving them.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF

Monte Solberg

Reform

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is something I failed to touch on during my speech.

Indeed I have heard from young people who are very concerned about the structure of the millennium scholarship fund because it does not treat all students equally. It does not seem to recognize that many students will come out of school with staggering levels of debt, some of them $25,000 a year.

We have seen debt levels go ever upward in the last several years. I think the young man is very level headed when he says that money should be used toward paying down debt. I think that is an excellent suggestion, recognizing that perhaps the real fiscal dividend will be the interest saving when we do actually start the process of paying down debt. That is the real fiscal dividend.

One of the things the government does not address in terms of education is that when people benefit from a program like a millennium scholarship fund, so many of them just disappear to the United States. We have a situation where the millennium scholarship fund turns out to be a subsidy for companies like Microsoft that come along and scoop up a third of the graduating class at Waterloo University. So we have to do something about that side of it. We need to ensure there are jobs in this country, that they are well paying jobs and that they are ones where taxes are not so high that they drive away the brightest and the best.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF

Jack Ramsay

Reform

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.)

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Medicine Hat on the excellent address he has given on the bill.

He referred to the $45 billion we are paying each year on this huge debt that has been amassed. When we have emergencies like the ice storm, floods and other emergencies, of course those people suffering should be able to turn to the rest of Canada for the assistance that the charitable people of this country are always ready with and standing by to give.

I want the member to respond to the latest crisis we are seeing with regard to the many people who are sick and dying as a result of hepatitis C. It seems we do not have funding available to help those people when they need help while we are spending $45 billion to pay the interest on a debt. Will he relate the whole history of the accumulation of the debt and the demand on the revenue dollar to pay the interest to our ability to respond to emergencies such as the hepatitis C emergency facing us today?

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF

Monte Solberg

Reform

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member for Crowfoot.

Today we have a debt of $583.2 billion and as I mentioned in my address it is one of the largest debts in the entire world today in terms of per capita indebtedness, second only to Italy among industrialized countries.

The result is that we do not have the money often necessary to put toward programs that are vitally important. A third of every tax dollar today goes to pay just the interest on the debt.

Imagine if we did not have to pay the debt. We would be able to lower personal income taxes by 71%. Or could dedicate the money to things that are vitally important like helping people who, through no fault of their own, have been victimized by a federally regulated blood system.

We need $4 billion to help out all those people who have been victimized. We could do that today if the government would take the approach that the priorities are to start to pay down debt, focus spending on things that are most important and start the process of lowering taxes. That is the approach that will help all Canadians.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Pursuant to Standing Order 74 we are now in that period of the debate which is 10 minutes per intervention with no questions and comments.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
PC

Jim Jones

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC)

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-28. Nothing would make me happier than to stand here today and announce to the House how pleased my PC colleagues and I are with the implementation bill. However, due to the many serious shortfalls in Bill C-28 I am unable to do that.

The Liberal government has shown its true colours with both the budget and Bill C-28. This is not a government concerned with the needs and pains of all Canadians. Instead, this is a government that believes in crisis management, big government intervention politics and damage control.

At times it appears that the government has the delusion of adequacy. What we know for certain is that this is a government without a vision.

I would suggest that all members of this House pick up a copy of Bill C-28 and glance over it. Then they would ask themselves: Is this document from a government with a plan or is this a document of hope? Does this bill provide leadership that Canadians so desperately crave? When we are honest with ourselves the answer is emphatically no.

Instead we have a piecemeal reactionary bill that reflects the desires of the Liberals' favourite collective, the collective of special interest groups that represent only the needs of a fraction of Canadians.

“Four more years”. This used to be the rallying cry of parties seeking re-election, but not this Liberal government. To the Liberals it is the time span between announcements of proposals and their implementation. This clearly contradicts the Liberals' 1993 promise to end the credibility-stretching tradition of not passing tax changes until months after they are announced, which is another broken red book commitment. One is left to believe that the Liberals have had their gag reflexes surgically removed.

When I rose in the House on Monday to speak to Bill C-223 I made a point which pertains equally to Bill C-28. Canada needs a comprehensive national tax relief plan today. If the finance minister will table such a plan with objectives for all Canadians it will have the support of our party.

There is no monopoly on good economic ideas. The GST needed to be implemented and Canada has a balanced budget because of it. The NAFTA remains an integral tool for economic growth. Just as my party has always been willing to share its good ideas, we do so again today. Tax relief is essential to our future prosperity and the PC Party does not mind if the Liberals want to borrow this plank from our platform as well.

The Minister of Finance should know that the model in Bill C-28 would never achieve sustainable growth. Meeting with lobbyists and coming up with their pet initiatives might assist leadership bids, but it certainly does not help the general public.

We have heard a lot about brain drain. It devastates Canada's sustainability as a technology leader. It deprives Canadian industries of the ability to remain competitive. Above all, and what we can never forget, is that brain drain rips the heart and soul out of Canada and its families.

I am well aware that on this issue the industry minister has agreed with me, because his own departmental study entitled “Canada in an Integrated North America” shows this to be the case. This study points to high taxation as the major cause of brain drain. The study goes on to say that a married taxpayer working in Toronto with a salary of $100,000 could add over $20,000 to after tax income, an increase of close to 40%, if he or she were to earn the same income in New York or Chicago. It is no wonder that our best and our brightest are leaving for the U.S.

This same visionary leadership that Canada needs on tax relief is also required on education. This bill has taken the same lackadaisical approach to education that it takes to taxes. There are four targeted education components to Bill C-28. As with tax relief, specific targeting will not be the answer. The approach must be one of fairness for all, greater efficiency toward benchmark goals, and above all else it must be comprehensive in nature.

So much of Canada's future hinges on our national education agenda. It is time to stop paying lip service to our citizens as Canada's greatest natural resources. Instead we must begin backing this up with our actions.

It is very simple. It is just like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike. Stopgap measures might make you popular, but you need the engineer who came up with the permanent solution. Guess what? Where is that engineer? The engineer is in the United States because he is getting a better tax break and, unfortunately, making $10,000 more a year and retaining 40% more of those wages after tax.

By enacting over 15 favourable changes to the tax code for selected groups the Minister of Finance has shown he knows there is a problem. The hon. member for Medicine Hat mentioned that the finance minister has found out what the problem is because he has taken his assets and put them in a blind trust offshore. Why did he do that? Because he pays no taxes or very little taxes.

If the finance minister wants to become Prime Minister of this country he should realize that we have to be competitive on a tax basis with the United Stated or we are going to continue to lose our best and brightest to the United States.

It is time for the finance minister to go all the way by implementing broad based tax relief for all Canadians. For example, an increase in personal income tax exemptions to $10,000 would immediately remove two million low income Canadians from the tax rolls and reward all hard working Canadians. Even though it is a Progressive Conservative idea we do not mind lending it to the minister for the good of our fellow Canadians.

In conclusion, let us undertake a national education plan which ensures that we will produce the highest skilled individuals our industry requires. Once we have the high skilled workforce, let us make sure they choose to remain in Canada by reducing the crushing tax burden. Industry will be supportive of such a move, taxpayers will welcome this and families that do not have to export their children to the United States will be overjoyed. When the PC Party is presented with such an implementation bill we will resoundingly endorse it. That day is not here. Bill C-28 is not such a bill and the PC Party will be voting no.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
BQ

Gilles-A. Perron

Bloc Québécois

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-28, the catch all bill. It is in fact a humungous volume of 464 pages covering so many subjects that it is easy to play a game of hide and seek with and slip in unnoticed amendments that could benefit certain individuals or groups of individuals.

What had to happen happened. The vigilance of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot led to the discovery on page 414, at the end of the volume, which everyone skips over, clause 241 amending paragraphs 250(6)( a ) and ( b ) of the Income Tax Act.

What does this clause concern? It concerns shipping, exclusively. The amendment, if passed, would permit international shipping companies to enjoy certain tax advantages. We all know that the Minister of Finance of Canada is sponsoring Bill C-28 and that he is also the sole owner of Canada Steamship Lines Inc., a shipping company.

We have the following questions. Is the Minister of Finance in an apparent or a real conflict of interest? In the light of his position, why is the Minister of Finance sponsoring this bill? Why, in his own words, is he unable to speak on the matter so as to avoid a conflict of interest?

Since February 5, 1998, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and colleagues from all the opposition parties have been trying to get the facts on this bill and asking questions in this House, without success. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister direct the member and the opposition critics to the Standing Committee on Finance. As we know, the committee is under Liberal control. They do not want to hear the experts, witnesses who are likely to help the committee to get to the bottom of clause of 241 of Bill C-28, sponsored, I repeat, by the Minister of Finance.

This tactic helped me understand a lot of things. Yes, the finance minister was too busy with Bill C-28 to prepare a more realistic budget. He was more preoccupied with the tax benefits his company would get under this bill. Instead of indexing tax tables, helping small and medium size businesses to create jobs, reducing EI premiums and adjusting transfers to the provinces, our dear minister was busy with Bill C-28. Of course, his budget contained a proposal to promote Canadian unity, namely the millennium scholarship fund.

I do not want people to misunderstand our position with regard to the millennium scholarship fund. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, support the millennium scholarship fund as long as Quebec can withdraw from that program and is fully compensated so it can administer its own scholarship program.

In closing, I fail to understand why this government and the Standing Committee on Finance persist in refusing to hear witnesses. Do they have anything to hide? What kind of tricks do government members have up their sleeves? We want clear and precise answers to these and a lot of other questions.

This situation must be clarified for the sake of our integrity as members of this House, and that is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion brought forward by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
REF

Art Hanger

Reform

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address my serious concerns regarding Bill C-28. Just as a refresher, this bill amends at least 18 separate pieces of legislation, all pertaining to the income tax measures announced in the February 1998 budget.

Specifically, the bill would amend provisions dealing with charitable donations, tax shelters, registered education savings plans, film and video production services, tax credits, the tax status of corporations, treatment of RRIFs, family farm corporations and many, many others.

Let me be very clear. The Reform Party opposes the use of tax concessions as an instrument for manipulating investment behaviour and the industrial structure. These amendments add to the already convoluted, overly complicated and confusing tax code, a tax code which already contradicts our commitment to a fair and visible simple tax system.

In addition, these amendments do nothing to deal with the real problem of excessive spending, high taxes and escalating debt.

This bill is typical of a Liberal-Tory approach to fiscal policy. The Tories are as much to blame as the Liberals because we have experienced tax increases under both of these regimes and there is very little difference in the policies they have adopted over the years. This bill offers no tax relief to cash strapped Canadians.

As the defence critic for my party I noted with interest that the military received a pay increase. It was well documented. A press release issued by the government indicated that the lower ranks would be getting somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 3.2% increase. How does that translate into the dollars and cents that will go into the pockets of those military personnel? There are many who fall within the same earning range in this country.

For instance, the master corporal was so elated to have a $100 pay increase. That is the gross amount. After taxes, after EI premiums, after CPP deductions which will be the biggest hit he will have to accommodate in that increase, this man will end up with $53 clear a month.

The Department of National Defence decided that was not satisfactory. It decided that it would also boost his rent by $30 more a month. Without even taking into consideration whether the master corporal is going to be in another tax bracket and subject to tax bracket creep as an additional hit on his wage, he realizes a net increase of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $23 a month. That is a crying shame.

There is no question that he has moved up from one tax bracket into another given the fact that he had very minor increases the previous year. Here he sits in another tax bracket and he is going to be literally whacked. If he realizes an increase of $20 a month out of that $100 gross, he will be lucky. Many Canadians fall into that same category. They are barely making ends meet.

This bill does nothing to help him, nothing whatsoever. In fact, it gives him a greater burden and certainly not a sense of security. It did not take him long to figure out that he was not much further ahead than he was before. He will not be able to accommodate any emergency that creeps into his home and his life with any form of benefit from the wage increase he received. That is one aspect.

I feel for him. I feel for many other families who are subject to the same heavy tax burden. This government has failed to live up to its responsibility to those people.

I also reflect back to some of the points that Reform has stated it would like to see. Under the Liberal tax bill, that gentleman will obviously fall into a category somewhere around $2,000 to $3,000. If we look at our last election platform, that master corporal and his family would only pay $520 as opposed to $2,189. That is quite a substantial difference. It is almost $1,600 back into his pocket. I am sure he would be able to find ample opportunity to spend that on other areas which would benefit him and his family.

This bill does nothing to address the enormous public debt which the government and the Tory government before it are responsible for. Some of these social costs are nothing but staggering. The total interest-bearing debt sits at around $600 billion. Of that, $120 billion is held by foreign entities, non-residents. One-third of that 25% is American held. The remainder is divided between Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Undoubtedly it will have some effect if the markets are as uneasy as they are in Asia. That matter is far from settled. It could definitely have an effect here.

Are we prepared with the massive debt and the interest payments? We still have to go outside this country. There is not enough money to pay and hold that debt by investors in this country. We have to go outside to borrow the money. Why should we as an industrialized country be in that position? It would be nice to be independent but unfortunately that is not the case.

That is one point dealing with the debt. The government also owes $3.7 billion to the Canada pension plan and $114 billion to the public sector pension plans. Again this further complicates our debt picture and the burden on Canadian taxpayers.

Debt interest is $45 billion. What would it be equal to if we had the capability of spending that $45 billion on things other than the interest on the debt?

It would be two full years of Canada pension or Quebec pension plan benefits. It would amount to two and a half years of GST revenues. It would amount to 71% of all PIT revenues.

It would amount to the entire annual budgets of the four western provinces, which is a substantial amount of money. It would amount to the entire annual budgets of Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. It would amount to the entire net debts of all of the provinces combined, excluding B.C., Ontario and Quebec.

This probably more than anything would be of greater impact: it would be enough to pay for all Canadian hospitals, physicians and drug costs for an entire year. Our health care problem could easily be resolved if it was not for the interest that we are paying on our massive debt.

It would be enough to cut taxes an average of $3,200 a year for the average taxpayer. Just think of what they could do with that money if it were in their pockets. In 1997 the average Canadian taxpayer paid $3,285 a year in taxes just to pay the interest on that debt. This works out to $275 a month or just over $9 each and every day.

Reform has a much better plan. We will cut personal income taxes by $12 billion or $2,000 per family by the year 2000.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink
BQ

Antoine Dubé

Bloc Québécois

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address once again Bill C-28, which is sponsored by the Minister of Finance.

We could examine several provisions, since this is an omnibus bill, but I am primarily concerned with clause 241. The reason is that the situation is not at all clear. Before me, several Bloc Quebecois members asked again that this issue, which leaves the impression there may be an apparent or real conflict of interest, be resolved, since it tarnishes somewhat the government's credibility when it comes to finance.

It is not normal to leave the impression that the Minister of Finance may be sponsoring a bill that could benefit a shipping company he fully owns, namely Canada Steamship Lines.

I represent the riding of Lévis, where we have a big shipyard.

As the member of Parliament for Lévis, I, like all my constituents, want to have the largest possible number of ships come through Lévis and the St. Lawrence Seaway. This is very important. Why? Because the more ships go through, the greater the chances for our shipyard to build ships. In fact, it would only be normal if Quebec's largest shipyard could build ships.

However, one of these international shipping companies happens to belong to the Minister of Finance. Of course, the minister asked someone else to manage his interests, which are currently held in trust. However, there is cause for concern when we see that even if he himself does not make speeches, and does not answer questions in the House on shipping, he is sponsoring this bill, and clause 241 is part and parcel of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to have this bill referred back to the finance standing committee so that the whole matter can be cleared up, because our questions have not yet been given clear answers. Of course, the ethics counsellor of the Prime Minister has appeared before the committee, but his testimony has been quite vague, and everything went very fast.

We heard the Prime Minister's response yesterday. He is satisfied with answers such as this “Everything has been cleared up, and there is no problem whatsoever since I, the Prime Minister of Canada, have full confidence in my finance minister. The matter is closed”. We do no think it is that simple. That is too easy a way out. We should be hearing arguments, we should be dealing with substance and examining all aspects of this clause. We should check the legal implications and see who is getting tax breaks and under what conditions.

We are dealing with companies operating in international shipping. Canada Steamship Lines is one of these companies. Some will say this is quite normal, since we are dealing here with shipping and transportation. Ships do travel, just like planes do. That reminds me of Mr. Trudeau who said that fish should be under federal jurisdiction because they do swim from one place to another.

So ships do in fact travel, and the problem is not international shipping. The issue we ware raising is that the finance minister, who owns a fleet of ships, although his assets are in trust while his is in office, stands to benefit not only now but once he no longer is in office. This is a very important issue, and the people have a right to know.

I would like to touch on another aspect. I have tried repeatedly to put shipbuilding on the government agenda again. When the current Minister of Finance was responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, he systematically refused to answer any question either from myself or from any other member having anything to do with providing assistance to the shipyard in Lévis. His response was always that he had business interests in shipping. So, he does admit to having interests, but argues that they are held in trust.

The Minister of Finance is one of the most prominent ministers in government, but he hides behind his business interests in this area, claiming a conflict of interest, not to act in support of the shipbuilding and shipping industries, which are in serious difficulty today.

We should have a debate on this too, but one that would be, as suggested by the Liberals in 1993, a real summit on the future of shipyards in Canada. We could, for instance, update the study conducted more than ten years ago on the condition of the fleet at the international level to take a closer look at the financial assistance policies most nations have for their shipyards.

Our neighbour to the south is one of the leading shipbuilding and shipping countries in the world. The United States want nothing to do with OECD agreements regarding subsidies to shipyards. In Canada, we will not consider such a policy, because it appears we have reached an agreement with the other countries of the OECD.

However, the other members of the OECD are not following Canada's example and, as they see that the Americans are not accepting this agreement to no longer subsidize shipyards, they are going about it in other ways. Some European countries are doing like the Americans, waiting until everybody signs the agreement. In Canada, we are—if you will excuse the expression—the butt end of the joke, since, because we wanted to appear virtuous in the matter, we end up with a pretext to do nothing.

So, I will use this question to point that out, because with every opportunity I have, as the member for Lévis and to contribute to the future of shipping and shipbuilding, I always advocate a real shipping policy.

I will conclude by saying that we must—and quickly so—get all the facts on clause 241 and the consequences of it, because in the interim the effect is to mortgage what might be done to further advance the cause of shipping and shipbuilding in Canada.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997
Permalink

April 2, 1998