Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the standing committees, a list of which is attached.
[English]
The auditor general recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Industry Canada establish
mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of our international business development activities.
As recommended, we are establishing a performance measurement framework to determine the effectiveness of existing government programs and services and to help plan for the future.
The international business development report I am tabling today will serve as an annual report card updating parliamentarians on the results of our international business development activities.
[Translation]
We must ensure that the services we provide achieve their intended objectives at the least possible cost.
[English]
Next year's report will have much more detail than this initial endeavour and will discuss the preliminary results of our performance measurement system, including feedback from clients on our trade commissioner service, a review of the impact of the department's exports, investment and technology development activities. It will have baseline indicators that have been established to measure Canada's year over year success in terms of international markets and our promotion in those markets.
The government's international business development activities work hand in hand with a rigorous bilateral and multilateral trade policy agenda and clearly establish market access priorities to ensure that Canadian businesses have competitive access to world markets.
We are improving the delivery of services because international trade is an important part of the government's job strategy. The more companies we introduce to trade, the more jobs are created in Canada. To that end we have set a tangible goal of doubling the number of active exporters by the year 2000.
[Translation]
With exports accounting for nearly 40 per cent of our gross domestic product, international trade has become the engine that drives the Canadian economy.
[English]
For ever $1 billion in increased trade, we create or sustain 11,000 jobs in Canada, jobs for every community in the country. Promoting Canada's products and services is, however, only one part of the job.
We also must sell Canada as an outstanding place to invest. Foreign direct investment in Canada has a dramatic impact on job creation. Today three Canadian jobs out of ten, both direct and indirect, more than 50 per cent of our total exports, and 75 per cent of our manufacturing exports are directly attributable to foreign direct investment in Canada.
Studies suggest that attracting a billion dollars of foreign direct investment into Canada results in up to 45,000 jobs over a five year period. That is why we have developed a specific agency, a specific program, to help bring in more of those investment dollars.
(1515 )
I cannot talk about international business development without referring to the success of the Team Canada trade missions led by the Prime Minister, together with the premiers, which have helped the private sector to bring home more than 550 business deals with more than $22.1 billion for Canadian companies and resulting in Canadian jobs.
Canada is meeting the challenge of globalization and members have only to look at our track record.
The 1996 trade statistics are proof that Canada is succeeding internationally. Canada's trade surplus reached a record level of $34 billion. That was $6 billion more than in 1995. That is success.
This success has been built on the strength of the Team Canada partnerships. We have forged solid alliances with our provincial, municipal and private sector colleagues. By working together in Team Canada, we have been able to deliver the programs and services that Canadian companies need to compete internationally.
Finally, it is a pleasure for me to announce today that the 1997-98 Canada's international business strategy is now available to the Canadian business community. International business development programs and initiatives help Canadian businesses become export ready by providing access to key financial services, market information in export programs.
The federal government and its Team Canada partners continue to forge ahead in their international business development endeavours. Working together we are confident that Canada will continue to prosper as we expand and diversify our markets abroad and as we attract foreign investment and technology flows into Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish I could thank the minister on tabling this report, but that will unfortunately be impossible for a number of reasons.
I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak on the report on international business development entitled ``Achievements, International Business Development Programs'' tabled today.
But before I do, I would like, if I may, to tell the Minister of International Trade, through you, how the unacceptable attitude of his government and his department has saddened and annoyed me. Once again, this government and the minister's department have
shown disrespect for the opposition by waiting until the very last minute to tell us about the tabling of the report on international business development. This hardly gives us enough time to become properly acquainted with such an important report and to fully absorb all of its contents.
We know that documents could have been made available to us by the minister's office yesterday, and we would have known not to release this information, because we thought there was honest and sincere co-operation. We hope there will be honest and sincere co-operation in the future. This is not the first time that I have to raise this point publicly in the House. We do hope this issue will be addressed.
I will not go on about this, except to say that the government was unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure that we could carry out our duties properly; otherwise, we would have been afforded the opportunity to read and prepare comments on the report on international business development before it was tabled. After all, is that not what we are supposed to be doing here today?
According to the minister, his report responds to the recommendations made in the November 1996 auditor general report. The report includes the following:
-in spite of the some $375 million spent by the federal government every year to promote trade, the data on the results of this activity is not gathered systematically and is not sufficiently objective. Moreover, a systematic and more objective feedback on the results would allow the government to be better informed about the eventual benefits of its action, and to better understand what adjudication process is required when co-ordinating and distributing its resources.Finally, the auditor general pointed out ``that the government must inform Parliament more systematically about the activities and achievements made under the international trade development program''.
(1520)
In short, the auditor general is saying that the government invests $375 million per year in a program, without checking to see where that money goes. This is what the auditor general is saying.
Moreover, the auditor adds: ``I noticed the same thing 10 years ago, and no change has been made since''. So, $375 million are invested to help small and medium size businesses, to help businesses export their products. Does the program work? Maybe, but we do not know, because the government does not conduct any audit regarding a meagre $375 million invested hapharzardly.
In light of all this, you can imagine my surprise when I noticed at the last minute that the report tabled today by the Minister for International Trade does not in any way address the Auditor General's recommendations, any more than it addresses the report of the committee on assistance to small export businesses. Because the minister was not called to order on one occasion, he has now been called to order twice: once by the Auditor General and once by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
We would have expected the Liberal government to explain in this report how it was going to come up with systematic and more objective feedback on the results obtained in international trade that would allow it to be better informed about the eventual benefits of its action, and to better understand what adjudication process is required when co-ordinating and distributing its resources.
Instead, the report tabled today looks more like a pre-election score sheet of the Liberal government's accomplishments with respect to international trade. The report, the minister's speech, far from making specific recommendations, only goes over the mechanisms already in place within this program, as well as the general directions taken by the government.
The minister should have done his homework. He wrote the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade asking for an examination of existing mechanisms. We did as he requested and, what is more, concluded our study and tabled our report. And they replied to it. They are telling us they will reply at some point. I am telling him he has already done so.
Moreover, the Minister for International Trade's letter of presentation with this report clearly stipulates that the mechanism for measuring the performance of resources allocated to the international business development program is not yet in place, and that further details will be forthcoming.
The auditor general has said: ``We have been waiting ten years for it'', and now the minister tells us that he is well aware of the fact that he needs to put feedback mechanisms in place, and that he will do so in future.
I would like to point out that we can easily be a bit sceptical about this. The government also wrote in its red book that two groups were going to be set up to examine trade disputes and anti-dumping problems. Both were to report to Parliament by December 1995. They are saying: ``Trust us. We will make the reports by these two groups available during the next election campaign''.
Asking the Canadian public, and particularly the official opposition, to trust the government is perhaps asking rather a lot of them. One might have expected that the government and the Minister for International Trade would have taken concrete steps to respond to the auditor general's concrete recommendations. It was not the nasty separatists, nor the Reform Party, but the auditor general who asked the Minister for International Trade to take concrete steps to correct the situation. The minister tells us: ``Trust me, and you will see that, in future, we are going to coeect this situation''.
In closing, I remind him that former Prime Minister Kim Campbell also said ``Trust me'' during an election campaign. So now there are only two of them left.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to respond on behalf of the Reform Party to the tabling by the Minister for International Trade of the document entitled ``Achievement of the International Business Development Program''.
Although we have not yet had a chance to see the document, this is democracy at its finest. We are told that it responds to recommendations put forward in the November 1996 auditor general's report on Canada's export promotion activities.
(1525 )
Let us examine some of what the auditor general actually had to say about Canada's export promotion activities. His comments are somewhat less than flattering. ``We concluded that Parliament needs to be better informed about the expenditures, outputs, revenues and cost sharing of Canada's export promotion efforts. This would help ensure that there is no undesirable overlap, that the distribution of expenditures reflects the government's priorities and that Parliament is kept informed about the progress being made toward the government's objectives''.
I have to agree with the auditor general that there is a pressing need for the public to know how its hard earned tax dollars are being spent. For example, how much do all of our globe trotting Team Canada missions cost? We are always told that business people pay their own way, so ``don't worry, be happy, it is not costing us anything''.
I would remind the House that it is the taxpayer who picks up much of the tab for plane fares, hotels and food for all the government officials who lay the groundwork for these missions and for the PM's tag-along entourage. That is not paid for by the business community.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some programs for export market development money gets sprinkled around, as well as quite a bit from the Export Development Corporation. I would really like to know how much, to whom and did we get our money's worth. I challenge anyone to get that kind of information out of EDC. All you will get is a thousand and one reasons why such information is confidential, sensitive or none of our business.
I look forward with some eagerness to seeing what the minister proposes be done to keep Parliament better informed about expenditures on all aspects of trade promotion.
Directly related to cost is cost effectiveness. Here is what the good AG had to say on that score: ``While we were unable to find conclusive evidence about the direct effects of trade promotion, it is possible to measure the cost effectiveness of specific activities. To do this requires information on costs and systematic objective measures of the usefulness of specific activities to business or measures of their impact. However, both the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of Industry need better cost information. They need to obtain systematic and objective feedback to determine the value and utility of more of their key activities''.
I know, and the auditor general knows, that the exact impact of government programs might be hard to measure. Did a foreign sale happen because of a government initiative or did it happen because a Canadian company had a superior widget and a lot of sales moxie and initiative? All that the auditor general is asking is for objective feedback about the key activities. He thinks that it can be done. I think it needs to be done and done often.
I would like to comment briefly on the puffery surrounding Team Canada's alleged success in snagging those ephemeral deals. The government needs to ask itself: What other factors play a role in determining our exporters' success? Really, if Team Canada's initiatives are all it takes to be successful abroad, then why would we not see our exports to China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay rising instead of falling after our big ticket missions there?
Mr. Eggleton: They are rising.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. minister says they are not falling. He should check the government's statistics which are a matter of public record. India, I recall, had a drop of 16 per cent.
(1530)
There must be some other ingredients required in the foreign sales mix. A healthy economy is one. Strong companies and confident consumers who are not burdened with an unbearable tax load is another one. How about the ability to build some muscle through domestic trade by allowing companies to freely trade with neighbouring provinces?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to tell the hon. member that he has the same amount of time as the minister, and that time has unfortunately expired.
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items.
Pursuant to Standing Order 92, this report is deemed adopted on presentation.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 60th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of the Standing Committees on Industry and on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 60th report later this day.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to propose this private member's bill which would amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the retail sale of a prepackaged food containing an ingredient that has been genetically altered through a prescribed biotechnological process unless a label is attached stating that the prepackaged product has been genetically altered or contains an ingredient that has been genetically altered.
Since genetics engineering is racing full speed ahead with no checks and balances in place, the purpose of this bill is to protect the consumer so that the consumer knows what he or she is buying.
I am pleased to propose this bill today and I look forward to engaging in debate when the time comes.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing today will do three things in amending the Criminal Code of Canada. It will provide a maximum punishment of life in prison with no parole for 25 years if guilty of sexual assault on a child under 8 or a child under 14 who is under the offender's trust or authority or who is dependent on the offender.
It will suggest an increase in the maximum penalty for forcible confinement to 14 years in the case of a parent or ward who confines a child and thereby harms the child's physical or mental health. It will provide assurance that the definition of publication in the case of child pornography covers transmission by electronic mail or posting the material on the Internet or any other electronic net.
(1535)
I would like to thank those who have supported me in this bill. I look forward to debating this issue in the House in the near future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to move his motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
[English]
That the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Monday, October 28, 1996, be concurred in.[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am confused. When you are writing with one hand and listening with one ear, mistakes occur. Of course, we allow the report to be tabled, if it is not too late.
The Deputy Speaker: Everything is possible in the House if the House gives its consent to reconsider the motion of a few minutes ago.
[English]
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the concurrence in the third report of this standing This was with regard to the family trusts that the Minister of Finance referred to earlier today in question period when he talked about how he had closed all tax loopholes and accused the other parties of not supporting tax cuts.
When we look at the record of this government as it relates to issues such as family trusts, we find that the record is less than commendable.
Last May, I believe, the auditor general tabled his report regarding the family trust issue. He was very concerned about the situation where about $2 billion had been transferred out of this country on a tax free basis.
The transaction happened in 1991 but the present government obviously concurred with the decision of the previous government because it did everything it could in its power to ensure that the decision of the previous government was retained and enforced and it stood by it.
After some months, after it became public, the Minister of Finance stood up in the House with a ways and means motion and closed the loophole but did not close it retroactively. What that meant was the issue of $2 billion moving out of this country tax free by people of very substantial means. It is only people of very substantial means who can have $2 billion to move anywhere, albeit out of the country on a tax free basis.
(1540)
After the people involved and others who had the same opportunities available to them were able to take advantage of this loophole that had occurred in the law, the Minister of Finance stood in the House and closed the loophole. I find that abominable for the individual small taxpayer of this country.
As the House knows, the Reform Party in its fresh start introduced proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act and proposed that the basic exemption be increased from its current amount of around $5,800 to $7,900. That gives every Canadian in this country, rich or poor, working or otherwise, a tax break. However, it does not focus the tax break on the super rich. It focuses it on the working Canadians who carry this country on their backs.
We found that the Minister of Finance, by his actions and by his collusion with the decisions of the previous government, aided and abetted a situation where hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes went uncollected. On that basis, I find it rather appalling that the Minister of Finance would stand in the House, as the protector of the poor, and accuse the other parties of being otherwise when in fact it was his government that had it in its power to ensure that the rich and super rich pay their share and he did not do so.
These are the types of things that are abhorrent in this country. When we look to our parliamentarians for leadership, we find they make the rules according to those who have access, and for the small individual Canadian who just pays a bit of tax there is no opportunity for him to avoid or in any way escape the long arm of the tax collector. Yet others we find have had opportunities to walk away with what appears to be several hundred million dollars of tax through a small loophole.
I was involved in the debates at the time through the public accounts committee. I was appalled by the way the deputy minister of finance and others in his department tried to justify this situation. It dealt with an issue called taxable Canadian property. Every tax practitioner I am aware of is fully aware that taxable Canadian property has always been referred to in the context of international transactions. No one but no one could find any reference in the Income Tax Act, the income tax publications, the income tax rules, the income tax books published by the CCH or anyone else for that matter that made any reference to Canadian taxable property as being part of the domestic tax scene. Yet we had the deputy minister of finance come before the committee and say ``this was such a simple thing, it has been the rule since 1971, and it is so obvious that we did not even have to document it in this particular case''.
The point is if it had been such a simple and obvious thing, if Canadian taxable property applied to domestic transactions, such as real estate transactions-I remember one official from the Department of Finance saying that every time a Canadian acquires an asset he is acquiring Canadian taxable property and that is the way it has been since 1971-not one publication, not one reference in the Income Tax Act and not one reference by tax practitioners would suggest this.
(1545 )
Members know of the ongoing dialogue between the accounting profession and the Department of National Revenue regarding the way the Income Tax Act is applied to profits. Over a period of 25 years not one reference was ever made to the fact that Canadian taxable property was part of a domestic transaction. Yet the government says it is so simple and it has always been that way.
How on earth could the practitioners deem that this particular transaction was an allowable one? We have had the senior officials in committee and the Minister of Finance in the House stand up and say absolutely that this is an obvious situation. That is what turns the small taxpayer against government and politicians.
When the Minister of Finance stood today and made specific reference to this trust and the fact that he had closed the loophole I took exception to his statement. I wondered what he was doing. Today he is trying to be the defender of the small taxpayer. He made reference to the fact that he had closed this massive loophole, yet everyone knows that he left it open a mile wide. Anybody who has the expertise, the desire and the motive can take advantage of it. People can even get what is called an advanced tax write-off to lock it in. After all that, we find out that the small taxpayer cannot do it.
The member for Medicine Hat told us that personal income tax as a percentage of GDP has gone up 15 per cent. The Minister of Finance told us that he had not raised income taxes. The small taxpayer is carrying the country on its back, the wealthy have the opportunity to take advantage of the loopholes and the government allows them to go through before it closes the door.
I am going to close now because I am splitting my time according to the Standing Orders.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member who has just spoken and so eloquently at that. I am very pleased at the interest the Reform Party is suddenly taking in this committee's report.
However, I learned that the question of family trusts was not allowed to go to the public accounts committee. I would like the member to shed some light on these famous family trusts criticized by the Auditor General that should normally have been studied by the public accounts committee but were not.
I would like an explanation, and I would also like to hear a bit about this family trust scandal that, as my hon. colleague was saying, apparently left the small taxpayer stuck once again with the bill for this monumental blunder by the federal government. So I would ask my colleague to tell us a little more about that.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enlighten him on the problem. I am sure the Minister of Finance was well aware of the issue a long time before it became public through the publication of the auditor general's report last May.
(1550 )
When it became public, the Minister of Finance immediately referred it to the Standing Committee on Finance for study. It was studied for many months while the law remained in place with this great big, wide loophole that a truck could drive through. I am sure many people did drive a truck full of money across the border tax free because that is what happened when it went to the finance committee. The committee sat on it for months.
After the finance committee reported back to the House in September, three months after the general public became aware of it and this House became aware of it, the Minister of Finance introduced a ways and means motion. He could have stopped it the very day the auditor general made his report public and he did not.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for St. Albert.
My colleague mentioned very clearly his concern about who pays taxes. He talked about the long arm of the tax collector. He also talked about the questions and answers of the Minister of Finance today in the House. The minister tried to make the case that the Liberal government was taxing banks and a variety of other rich people in Canada more now than before.
The story is unclear. During this term of the 35th Parliament we witnessed and know it happened, the Liberal government-the Minister of Finance was involved and a representative from the Montreal area-gave Bombardier $100 million practically interest free.
An hon. member: It was $87 million.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): It was $87 million. Well, $87 million and $100 million is not very far apart. By the time it gets an interest free loan it is soon going to be $100 million. This is a company that made $400 million in profits in the last year and could have financed $87 million very easily.
This goes on and on. The Liberals try to claim they are defenders of the poor but at the same time they shovel the money out to the rich. The poor people are being held by the long arm of the tax collector. The tax collector grabs 40 per cent of the wages of young people so they cannot get ahead. I would appreciate a comment from my hon. colleague on that matter first.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. colleague as 30 seconds to reply.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have said it once and my hon. colleague has said it again. We can repeat it many times and we will be repeating it many times on the election campaign.
The Deputy Speaker: There is 12 seconds left. Is the hon. member splitting his time? I have three members standing. Which member is speaking next?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move:
That the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that the member for St. Albert, who originally had the floor, had indicated to the Chair and to the House that he was splitting his time. Perhaps you would go back to that order.
The Deputy Speaker: The difficulty the Chair has is that in fact I do not recall hearing the hon. member for St. Albert when he began his intervention say that he was splitting his time. I heard an hon. member say he did not hear him either. Can we have a small moment of reflection?
It has been pointed out that the hon. member for St. Albert indicated at the end of his remarks that he was splitting his time with the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. Under those
circumstances I hope colleagues will agree that the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands can now speak. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands can now speak.
(1555)
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to move:
That the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.The Deputy Speaker: It is one of those afternoons. Members on all sides of the House will appreciate that the peculiar requirements for making a motion on a point of order, as the Chair sees it, were met. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands had not said a word of his speech.
Accordingly, the Chair has no choice, as I see it, but to accept that the hon. member for Lethbridge has moved that the hon. member for Calgary Centre be now heard. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it, barely. On the basis that the yeas have it, I would declare that the motion is carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find, on my point of order, that we had more than five members rising. We want a standing vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Wonderful Wednesdays. The member for Calgary Centre was recognized on debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the Chair can give us some clarification. There were two members standing. The member for Lethbridge stood up and asked on a point of order for the House to recognize a certain member.
The Chair realized that it had no choice but to seek the opinion of the House, which you did. When the yeas and nays were called, I believe more than five members stood up seeking a vote. Perhaps you can enlighten us why the bells have not been rung, and why the member which the member for Lethbridge wanted to hear has not been heard.
(1600 )
The Deputy Speaker: I basically agree with the way the member has stated it, except that when the vote was called for the yeas won it. Therefore, in my view, the motion had passed and accordingly the House is acceding to the motion which is to give the hon. member for Calgary Centre the floor on debate.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor.
Some hon. members: We need a ruling.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has made his point. I obviously have not answered it to his satisfaction.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor on debate.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this concurrence motion on the third report of the public accounts committee deals with a very important issue. The issue is the fact that tax havens are a big concern to the government. I got that straight from the mouth of the Minister of National Revenue. I know she is concerned about this, as we should all be. It is a very important issue.
Apparently the government feels that it has closed this loophole, that the matter has been handled very fairly, and that in no way, shape or form will rich people be able to transfer assets within trusts, or assets outside trusts, outside the country without paying a fair percentage of taxes that one would consider to be right and fair.
My big concern is with the way the matter was handled. Right from the start the government was upset with the auditor general, our watchdog on government. Lord knows we need a watchdog on government. When we have cabinet ministers loose with a bunch of money, billions of dollars without having someone audit them, we can imagine what they could potentially do with it.
It should be the same as what we do with private citizens and corporations. We audit large corporations and small corporations. We audit individual taxpayers to ensure, as the Minister of Natural Resources likes to say, that we have integrity in our tax system and the volunteer system continues forward.
I do not think the government was very smart in attacking the auditor general. After all, there was confusion with respect to this family trust. It was a very wealthy trust. If the government is worried that they have done something wrong then it should have complained. If it was not worried it should not have complained. It looked bad for the government.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I would like a recorded vote on the motion put to the House by the member for St. Alberta. The House does not know who said yea or nay. It is my right to be able to ask for a recorded vote.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has already ruled on that matter. It may have been an erroneous ruling but the Chair has
ruled on it and we have moved on to the matter of the hon. member's intervention which he is in the process of making.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would be so kind as to let me know when I have one minute left in my speech. With all these interruptions I am losing track of the points I want to make, and I want to make sure I finish with a bang.
I am concerned about this third report. After the government finally accepted the auditor general's criticism, looked into the matter and had the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts review it, it became clear that something had to be done and the government acted.
Personally I feel the government has gone too far. It put in some strict rules that ultimately led to something everyone will see on their income tax form this year. They will see a foreign asset declaration section. Never in the history of the country has an income tax form been used to find out where everybody's assets are offshore. Because of this overreaction the government has put it in the income tax forms. It was done prematurely, with arrogance and with anticipation that the bill would pass and it has not passed. It is not even law.
(1605)
Now we have confusion across this land. This will simply ensure the Canadian taxpayer will become more frustrated and angrier than ever with our taxation policies. Instead of simplifying our tax policies the government continues to complicate them in such a way that I think more money will go into the underground economy and more money will go offshore because of high levels of taxation.
More people will start investing in tax free jurisdictions through tax exempt companies. They will put their after tax dollars into those tax exempt companies. There are people from tax haven countries who tour across the country and advise people on how to do it. It is legal. Because of our high levels of taxation that is what will happen.
They set up a lot of people, a lot of Canadian companies. Large corporations have set up their head offices offshore so they will not have to report their income to the Canadian government. If Canadians are able to make investments in tax exempt companies legally with after tax dollars as the money grows and accumulates in whatever it has been invested in offshore; if they do not take a dividend; and if they do not take a salary, they can still live in Canada and enjoy our wonderful health care and education systems, which are shrinking thanks to the Liberal government.
Then what happens? The offshore money grows tax free. They can reinvest the offshore money tax free. Does that not sound like a good idea? More Canadians will look at that. They will find that it appeals to them, that they like it, that they enjoy it. They will do it. That is where they will invest their money. That is what will happen.
Fewer and fewer Canadians every day have disposable income, including the Liberal Party whip who I know has some problems meeting his financial obligations in his household these days because he is taking home today much less money. I am making the same salary except for the whip money. He is taking home $3,000 less today than he was four years ago thanks to his own government. I hope he finds he can make ends meet with $3,000 less. In his tax bracket that is what the government and the finance minister have cost him.
Why are Canadians investing offshore? I made a list of why I think more people will invest less in companies in Canada and will go elsewhere because of the growing global economy. Here is what most Canadians feel about our country's taxation system. The current system is not fair. People perceive it to favour the rich and politicians at the expense of hard working taxpayers.
People question the value for money they are getting from politicians who do not know how to invest their money and do not have the business acumen to invest in businesses. Why are government officials investing in businesses and competing with the private sector? We could look at the bungling of the Pearson airport and the huge grant to Bombardier of over $1 billion over the years. This past year the company made a $400 million profit.
The Saskatchewan Conservative Party is being raked over the coals and being sent to jail for misuse of funds and raising money the wrong way. These are the things that scare people.
Let us look at the changes to the RRSPs for retired people. Now they have changed it from 69 to 71. Reducing taxes is difficult. Because of our confusing, complicated and convoluted Income Tax Act there is a fine line between tax avoidance which is legal, taking advantage of the loopholes, the exemptions and everything that is there, versus tax evasion. I have no respect for those who are guilty of tax evasion. Our bureaucracy in Revenue Canada is huge and costs a lot of money.
(1610)
Yesterday in the public accounts committee we were reviewing the issue of large corporations. Of the large corporations there are 6,000 plus 200 super huge conglomerates that they audit 100 per cent every year. I asked whether any of them ever got through without having to be reassessed. The answer was not one.
That does not mean these people are trying to evade taxes. It means they are trying to avoid taxes wherever they can legally but there is always a difference of opinion. Five or six people disagree.
There is a reluctance to address debt. I could go on and on, but before my time is up and since I am having a hard time getting everyone's attention I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1650 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Ménard
Mercier
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-151
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1730 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
After the taking of the vote:
[Translation]
Mrs Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition would like to vote on the motion.
An hon. member: They had their chance.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: No, no.
[English]
The Speaker: I called on three separate occasions during the taking of the vote for all those who were in favour of the motion to rise. Not seeing anyone, I called-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I called for all those who were in favour of the motion on three occasions. Not seeing anyone, I called for all those who were opposed to the motion and we voted on that.
If there are other members who are opposed to the motion, they can vote now, but the voting for those who are in favour has passed.
I declare the motion carried.
(1735)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment entered the House after the whips had walked up the floor and they voted on the motion just taken. Therefore, I think that their votes were out of order.
The Speaker: The hon. members who were mentioned are here in the House now. Did they enter after the vote was called?
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would happily take my name off the list of those who voted if it offends the hon. member. I do not wish to hold the House up any longer on this point.
Mr. Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to follow the leadership of my friend from British Columbia.
The Speaker: Are there other points of order?
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify things, I did rise. When I looked, people at the end had not risen. It seemed they were not going to rise. The Prime Minister said-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mrs. Tremblay: Our rights have been trampled.
The Speaker: I put the question and, for some reason, members did not want to vote. They will not vote this time around. Is there another point of order?
The hon. member for Richelieu.
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services also came in late for the vote.
Mrs. Marleau: Mr. Speaker, if it can put an end to this silly game, I will follow in my colleagues' footsteps.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I believe we are ready to proceed.