36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 168
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 8, 1998
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 1998 IQALUIT DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
1010
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-68
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Museums
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1040
1045
1050
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1120
1125
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1140
1145
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1225
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1230
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1245
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1300
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1315
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1330
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1345
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1350
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1355
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RICK CHAPLIN
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEARCH AND RESCUE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HURON—BRUCE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PLANE CRASH AT POINTE-LEBEL
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNOR GENERAL
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VICTIMS OF GULF WAR SYNDROME
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1405
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELWIN HERMANSON
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE RED VIOLIN
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-CHINA LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRIBUTE TO MAURICE CHAMPAGNE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1410
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SKILLED EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1415
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIAL UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1435
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOME CARE PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILD POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1440
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FORESTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Speller |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1445
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1450
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1455
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AVIATION SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1500
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments by Member
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1505
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1510
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
1525
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Order Paper Questions
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1530
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1545
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1550
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1555
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1625
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1640
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1700
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1715
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43. Third reading
|
1745
(Division 308)
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1750
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-316. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Fontana |
1755
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1800
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1805
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1830
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1835
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1840
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Fontana |
1845
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1850
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1915
1920
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1925
1930
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1935
1940
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1945
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1950
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1955
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC Summit
|
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
2000
![V](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 168
![](/web/20061116180732im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, December 8, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
1998 IQALUIT DECLARATION
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
32(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages,
the 1998 Iqaluit declaration, signed by the federal, provincial
and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women,
which marks this year's national day of remembrance and action on
violence against women.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to eight
petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the 6th report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the 44th annual session of the North Atlantic Assembly, NATO
parliamentarians, in Edinburgh, United Kingdom, November 9 to 13,
1998.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 7th
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. In
accordance with Standing Order 108(2) the committee undertook a
study of fisheries issues in Nunavut.
I would like to thank all the committee members who took the
time to go to my riding and learn about our fisheries issues.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a
comprehensive response to this report within a 150 days.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 48th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the review of
the broadcasting of proceedings of House committees.
I also have the honour to present the 49th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 49th report be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1010
PETITIONS
BILL C-68
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have five petitions on behalf of the people of Dauphin—Swan
River. The first petition is about the Firearms Act, commonly
known as Bill C-68.
The petitioners call on parliament to repeal the act and to
redirect the moneys allocated for its implementation to putting
more police on the streets, to crime prevention programs, suicide
prevention, women's crisis centres, anti-smuggling campaigns and
to fight organized crime and street gangs.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition deals with the Young Offenders Act.
The petitioners call on the House and the government to
replace the act with legislation that would deal more adequately
with young offenders, allowing proper punishment.
THE SENATE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition deals with Senate elections.
The petitioners point out that Manitobans have democratically
governed themselves in areas of provincial jurisdiction since
1870. They request parliament call on the government to call
only fit and qualified persons who have been democratically
elected by Manitobans to sit as Manitoba senators.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the fourth petition deals with the port of Churchill and the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The petitioners call on parliament to advise the government to
mandate the Canadian Wheat Board to deliver its grain shipments
through the Canadian port that offers the most advantageous cost
to producers and to require conveyers to guarantee seamless car
interchange.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the last petition deals with hep C compensation.
The petitioners call on parliament to revisit the hep C
compensation and to offer fair and compassionate compensation for
hep C victims.
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by 400 constituents of Oxford who ask that
parliament enact legislation such as Bill C-225 to define in
statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single
male and a single female.
MUSEUMS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to submit this morning. The first one is from over 100
residents of Dartmouth who are concerned about the future of the
Halifax regional cultural museum.
Because the level of support from the federal government to
local and regional museums has declined from 29% to 5% over the
last decade and because many regional and local museums in Canada
are facing financial shortages so severe that the preservation of
their artifacts is in question, the people of Dartmouth call on
the House to urge the Minister of Canadian Heritage to restore
the federal government funding level for regional and local
museums to at least the level of 1998.
MARRIAGE
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my second
petition is from over 100 citizens from Dartmouth who are also
concerned about the passage of Bill C-225.
They are in favour of the act to amend the marriage and
interpretation acts in order to define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada
customs and revenue agency and to amend and repeal other acts as
a consequence, be read the third time and passed.
1015
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I will be speaking on third reading
of Bill C-43.
Today we start the final debate in the House of Commons on the
creation of a new Canada customs and revenue agency. We arrived
at today's debate after a speech from the throne. We arrived
here today after a budgetary commitment by the Minister of
Finance. We arrived here after a campaign commitment by the
Prime Minister. Most significantly, we arrived here at this
debate after years of consultation and after hearing input from
extraordinary Canadians from across the country.
The bill before us today is the result of extensive
consultations. It was always our intent to prepare the best
possible legislation by listening to Canadians, learning from
their input and taking the appropriate action.
Our government issued a major proposal, then we revised it to
reflect what we heard. We put forward a second proposal and
again improved it after listening to people from every corner of
the country.
Three times we went back to the provinces, to the territories,
to members of parliament, to tax experts, to the customs and
trade professionals and organizations. We established a special
advisory committee to provide ongoing comments. We received
input from close to 10,000 of our employees. What started out as
a sound concept has become even a better piece of legislation
which reflects what people told us.
There have been many important improvements to the original
proposal and those improvements flowed directly from those
citizens who thought about the bill and offered up some better
thinking. I strongly believe this is a fine bill and I thank
those Canadians who gave their time, their wisdom and their
insights to making it so.
I know my friends from the opposition will argue during this
debate that we still have not consulted enough. Let me quote Mr.
Garth Whyte, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, when asked about more consultation in the
committee hearings: “We have been consulted to death”.
The simple truth is that the CFIB wants this bill passed. The
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants wants this bill
passed. The Canadian Bar Association wants this bill passed.
The Canadian Tax Foundation wants this bill passed. The Canadian
Importers Association supports this legislation. The Tax
Executives Institute support this legislation. The Canadian
Society of Custom Brokers supports this legislation. L'Association
de Planification Fiscale et Financière supports this
legislation. The Canadians Alliance of Manufacturers and
Exporters supports this legislation.
The reasons for this broad range of support are really quite
simple. First, a new Canada customs and revenue agency makes
plain, ordinary, everyday common sense. Second, the bill
constructively addresses all the serious issues raised by
Canadians during these three rounds of consultations.
I would like to touch on both these matters, why a customs and
revenue agency makes sense and how we have improved the bill, and
explain why this agency is a sensible idea. I do not want to
throw out a lot of complex jargon. I would rather relate some
real life experiences.
Take for instance overlap and duplication. Take for instance
red tape for small businesses. I was in business for 20 years
before I went into politics. I remember having to deal with an
auditor for workers compensation asking the same questions, going
through the same books as another auditor for payroll deductions.
That auditor went through the same process as another auditor
for provincial sales tax. That auditor in turn went through the
same process as an auditor for the GST. What a waste of talented
professional auditors. What a time consuming waste for business
people.
1020
Everybody talks about wanting to get rid of overlap and
duplication and we hear that every day in the House from members
over there, all the time. We hear it from the provinces every
single day. We hear it from small businesses. We hear it from
individual Canadians. Everyone talks about wanting to reduce the
paper burden and compliance costs.
This legislation is a real life opportunity to turn all that
talk into action because everybody understands there is only one
level of taxpayer, so let us move toward creating a single window
tax collection.
Canadians want governments to work together for their citizens.
They do not want to build a parallel tax system across the
country. Canadians have said that repeatedly. Every place I go
business people tell me they spend too much time and money
dealing with governments. I believe we should allow them to do
what they do best, create products and jobs.
There is something else I hear from every Canadian of every
political stripe. They said quit wasting money. Spend taxpayer
money wisely. Get governments to work together to cut costs and
streamline the process. The new agency makes plain, ordinary,
everyday sense.
Do not listen to me. Listen to other Canadians. Let me quote
from the presentation of the highly respected public policy forum
before the finance committee: “ The compliance cost saving from
a single administration would be between $171 million and $285
million. As well, we estimate administrative cost savings in the
range of $97 million to $162 million”.
The creation and successful implementation of a new agency can
save hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadians. Why on earth
would we want to spend all that extra money on the process of
collecting taxes when it could be put to so much more productive
use ending overlap and duplication, cutting red tape and saving
huge amounts of money? Those are all compelling reasons for
creating a new agency.
There are still other strong reasons, technology for one. It
takes a split second to transfer funds from St. John's to
Victoria. The power of computers is doubling every 18 months.
Electronic commerce is growing enormously and yet it can take a
full year to hire a government auditor.
We simply have to modernize that system. We have to design
faster and fairer staffing procedures. We need a system that can
keep pace with the ever changing world.
The new agency will take advantage of new technologies to reduce
paperwork, speed up decisions, keep employees and our clients,
individual Canadians, travellers and businesses, satisfied.
Technology is forcing us to make choices. Each province and
territory can spend vast sums in creating its own software and
computer systems. Or we have a choice, we can work together to
produce those systems.
When the province of British Columbia decided to add the B.C.
family bonus it could have built a whole new infrastructure, a
whole new software system and it would have cost tens of millions
of dollars. Instead it came to the federal government. We were
able to deliver that program for a little over $2 million. That
is working together. That is working smarter for the citizens.
Within two years $400 billion of business will be done on the
Internet around the world. Of that, $13 billion will be done in
Canada. Do we really want 12 different Canadian systems trying
to collect the taxes on these transactions like the people in the
Bloc want to do? Does that make sense, 12 different systems for
business to deal with?
We should be working together on a national basis to develop new
programs that make it easier for taxpayers to file over the
Internet or over the phone. We should be working together to
develop the world's finest software for privacy protection. We
should be working as one to spend limited resources to guarantee
that technology serves the interest of Canada and the interest of
Canadian taxpayers. Working together to serve the interest of
Canadians makes sense.
1025
We are creating the new Canada customs and revenue agency with
the goal of forging new partnerships with the provinces. We are
making a very serious effort to reach out.
This bill is about providing more options to the provinces,
giving them alternatives that can better serve the public
interest. The provinces and territories will have the right to
nominate people for 11 of the 15 positions on the agency's board
of management.
I must emphasize that the participation of the provinces is
completely voluntary. The provinces will maintain control over
provincial tax policy while the new agency will administer these
policies. This means that a province or territory will retain
full authority over the tax and will be accountable to its
taxpayers for it.
The opposition parties seem fairly worked up by the fact we are
moving to pass this legislation without having the provinces on
board. I have met with the provinces. I have met them on a
number of occasions. They all have supported the concept and we
will work closely with them. But I am a realist. I know that we
will have to work hard to earn the provinces' business. Frankly,
I do not mind if the provinces want to kick the tires of the new
agency or take it for a test drive. It will be a lot easier for
them to buy into something that is a real entity than a proposal
on paper.
Garth Whyte said for the CFIB: “If we wait for everybody to
come on side it never gets done”. We have lots of examples.
When we try to get everybody on board it never gets done. We
have to move on and show leadership.
Mr. Blair Nixon of the Canadian Bar Association said: “Go
forward. Pass it and let the agency convince those who are going
to be able to enjoy the efficiencies”. Mr. Robert Spindler,
representing our country's chartered accountants stated: “It is
usually better to start the process and then draw people in
rather than to turn it around and wait for the people to come and
then develop the system. The agency represents an opportunity.
Having the infrastructure at least allows that opportunity”.
This legislation provides for a uniquely Canadian model for
customs and revenue administration, a model rooted in a
non-partisan public service, a model based on partnership with
the provinces, a model respectful of our Canadian parliamentary
traditions, a model premised above all on fairness for Canadians
and service to Canadians.
On every major front the concept of a new agency makes plain,
ordinary, everyday common sense. But as I indicated, the bill
before the House is far superior to the original plan. We have,
for example, removed provisions that would have allowed for the
imposition of user fees without the approval of elected
officials. We have acted to guarantee that Canadians will
receive service anywhere in Canada in the official language of
their choice. We have ensured the agency will have the
flexibility to deal with the fundamental personnel issues of
hiring, training and retaining quality employees.
Most important, we have acted to strengthen ministerial
accountability. Over and over again I heard from Canadians that
political accountability is absolutely paramount if we want to
guarantee fairness to Canadians. Individuals and organizations
alike were adamant that the Minister of National Revenue retain
the primary stewardship role.
I took that message very much to heart. As I have said time and
time again, the bill does not mean the agency will not be part of
the government.
1030
The new Canada customs and revenue agency will remain proudly in
the public service of Canada and a strong federal agency. For
example, whenever a member of parliament wants me to inquire into
the fairness of how a specific case is handled, I will have the
power to do so. I will respond directly to them, as I do now.
Let me be crystal clear about the accountability measures
contained in this bill. The Minister of National Revenue will be
fully accountable to parliament. The Auditor General of Canada
will audit the agency's books and the agency's work. A corporate
business plan must be submitted to the minister for Treasury
Board for approval. The minister will submit an annual report on
its operations to parliament.
There is also a mandatory review of recourse mechanisms by a
third party after three years, as provided in section 59 of the
bill. A summary of the results will be included in the agency's
annual report to parliament.
The Public Service Commission can review and report on the
agency's staffing procedures.
Parliament will conduct a legislative review in five years.
No private sector member of the board of management will have
access to any file of any taxpayer. Only the minister will have
that oversight power.
As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business told the
finance committee of this House less than two weeks ago, “Bill
C-43 addresses the main concerns of political accountability,
privacy and provincial autonomy identified by our members”.
As the Institute of Chartered Accountants told the same
committee:
It is clear that comments provided... during the consultations,
were heard and taken into account. We're pleased to see that
under Bill C-43, the Minister of Revenue will retain
responsibility for this Agency and it will be structured to allow
for close Ministerial oversight and, in particular, that the
Minister's power of inquiry into any activity of the Agency will
be maintained.
As both the bar association and the tax foundation put it to the
same committee, “We support the initiative currently being
advanced by this government”.
The people on this side of the House consult with Canadians,
they listen to Canadians and they respond, just as we have in
this bill.
As much as I welcome such serious backing for this bill, I am
well aware that the creation of the agency is only the beginning
of the process.
Earning the trust of as many provinces as possible is essential.
I am trying to do that by building a better framework.
Ensuring fairness for every single taxpayer is also very
critical. That will be my priority every hour of every day.
Canadians deserve nothing less.
Treating our incredibly dedicated employees with understanding
and empathy is vital. I know some of them are a bit apprehensive
about change. I will do my very best to make the transition as
easy as possible.
Safeguarding the faith of Canadians in our tax system is of the
utmost importance. That, after all, is what makes it all work.
I promise the members of the House that, regardless of what
happens to this bill, I will soon come forward with a fairness
action plan and I will deliver on my word.
I intend to continue seeking advice from the vast range of
Canadians on means to improve service to taxpayers. With the
help of members of parliament from all parties, I will act on
that advice.
The truth is that I feel deeply honoured to be the trustee of
Canada's tax system. It is a fine and honourable system held in
high regard around the world. It is an amazing system premised
on honesty, voluntary assessment and fair payment of taxes owing.
It is a system upheld by public servants of hard work and
decency.
The job of every member of parliament is to take the necessary
steps to make a great system even better. The job of every
member of parliament is to ensure that our tax system is
unquestionably the world's finest and fairest, and that it
remains so. Our job is to take the necessary steps to seize the
opportunities and meet the challenges of the modern era. Our job
is to eliminate the red tape, chop away the overlap, cut wasteful
costs, build new partnerships, take advantage of technology, make
the most of far-sighted management practices, offer better
service and make the system work to Canada's advantage.
1035
This legislation is a major step in that direction. This
legislation is a major step forward. This bill is all about
providing better service to the provinces and the territories, to
businesses and, most importantly, to individual Canadians.
I know that my friends in the opposition will want to mount
vigorous criticisms of this bill. I respect that. I do not
understand it, but it is the bedrock of democracy.
At the end of the day, however, I urge all members of parliament
to remember three simple facts. First, there is only one level
of taxpayer in Canada. Second, this bill has massive support
from a wide range of Canadians. Third, this bill makes plain,
ordinary, everyday sense to Canadians.
In the end, this bill is not about politics. It is about doing
something positive for Canada.
I urge members of the House of Commons to vote yes to this bill
and to do this with genuine enthusiasm.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the minister on finally having his
bill brought before us at third reading. Unfortunately, it came
before us after time allocation was invoked at each stage of the
bill.
The minister said that this bill respects the finest traditions
of the parliamentary system. If that is the case, then why did
he cut short democracy? Why did he cut short democratic
deliberation when it came to this bill?
I can tell the House why. It is because for months he was not
able to get any degree of precedence or priority for this bill
from the government House leader or from those who manage the
government's legislative agenda. Suddenly they were seized with
an urgency to ram this bill through before the Christmas break
and they invoked time allocation.
The government announced its intention to invoke time allocation
on both report stage and third reading only two hours into the
debate. I must say that while I commend the minister for the
work that he, his officials and his parliamentary secretary have
put into this bill, I think it is disappointing, to say the
least, that the government has, in passing such a critically
important piece of legislation, so carelessly and callously
disregarded the best traditions of democratic deliberation in
this place.
The minister spoke at some length about the degree of
consultation which was exercised in the development of Bill C-43,
an act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency. I
would concur with him that his officials did a fine job in
consulting, particularly on the technical aspects of the bill,
with traditional interest groups like some of those he mentioned
which have a great deal of familiarity with the tax laws and
their application.
I would also commend the minister and his officials for having
taken to heart some of the constructive criticisms that were
levelled at earlier versions of his bill.
However, I would point out to the minister that his
consultations fell far short when it came to the kind of
democratic, political and public consultations which ought to
surround any important piece of legislation such as this.
It is fine and well to set up an advisory board of technical
experts who are extremely familiar with the Byzantine 1,300 page
tax code and its associated regulations, and to sit around and
talk with Revenue Canada union officials and people in the
department about the framing of legislation of this nature, but
that merely leaves about 30 million Canadians out of the process
of consultation.
This is where we think the minister and the government have
completely failed to consult deeply and broadly with respect to
the implications of this bill.
1040
I suspect that some day when this bill is proclaimed and this
new Canada customs and revenue agency comes into effect, there
will be a sudden flurry of news stories in the media regarding
the creation of this new agency and the passage into history of
Revenue Canada. Canadians will suddenly wake up startled,
wondering what is going on. I submit that the vast majority of
taxpaying Canadians have little or no idea that this rather
dramatic proposal has been made and will probably be adopted by
the House tonight.
I think that it would have behoved the minister and the
government to have consulted far more broadly and deeply with
grassroots Canadians. I think it would have behoved government
members to have voted for a Reform motion at the finance
committee which sought to extend hearings beyond the two or three
days on which hearings were held, to extend hearings across the
country, to allow Canadians in communities across our country,
those who work in Revenue Canada, those who are ordinary
taxpayers and those who have concerns about the administration of
the tax laws, to appear before us to prolong the debate so that
this rather dramatic change was not suddenly sprung upon them.
I am also disturbed that the government did not, with respect to
consultation, take at all seriously some of the very thoughtful
and substantive amendments put forward by the opposition. I will
grant that my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois put forward a
number of dilatory amendments to essentially strike every clause
of the bill. In a sense they were provoking the government into
time allocation. However, I would submit that there were some
very substantive and sensible amendments put forward at report
stage by the official opposition.
The minister talked about common sense. Where was the common
sense in the government voting against our Motion No. 7? Among
other things, that motion would have inserted words like “the
legislation should be enforced in a manner that respects the
principles of fairness, impartiality and accountability”.
Why in the world did government members stand in this place last
night to vote against ensuring that the legislation be enforced
in a manner that respects fairness, impartiality and
accountability? Are they against fairness, impartiality and
accountability in this legislation?
It escapes me as to why the government voted against a motion to
ensure that any new powers granted to the agency could only be
granted by parliament and not simply by the cabinet through order
in council. Why did the government vote against a motion to
restrict this granting of further powers to this parliament and
to remove the carte blanche power of the cabinet to grant such
powers to the new agency?
These and other substantive motions which we put forward were
voted down without apparently even a moment's consideration on
the part of the government, which again causes me to question the
sincerity of the minister's remarks with respect to consultation,
listening to Canadians and following the debate.
Having said all of that about process—and I really do find it
disappointing—let me say that there are certain redeeming
aspects to this legislation. We in the official opposition have
been quite consistent in pointing out that we feel there are
certain incremental gains to be found in the kind of corporate
culture of the new revenue agency which this bill envisions. We
believe that it would be an improvement over the status quo for
this new revenue agency to be released from the kind of
burdensome, bureaucratic, inefficient, cookie-cutter style
personnel and human resource policies enforced on it by the
regulations of the Treasury Board and public service legislation.
Creating greater flexibility in the revenue agency's management,
hiring and personnel practices we think is a positive step
forward.
1045
However, the gains to be made in terms of flexibility of human
resources management would allow the new agency among other
things to pay some of its people on the basis of merit. It would
allow the new agency to pay some of its senior highly skilled
auditors competitive salaries vis-à-vis the private sector. All
of these improvements could be achieved without Revenue Canada
metamorphosing itself into an agency. It simply is not necessary.
Other opposition members and I have made the point again and
again in the House and at committee that if the government simply
wanted greater flexibility in hiring, firing and paying people,
it could have done that without moving to an agency and without
the bill that is before us today. The government did not need to
create a new level of bureaucracy through the adoption of a
commissioner and a patronage appointed board of directors. The
government could have achieved the personnel efficiencies without
potentially diminishing parliamentary accountability through the
minister to parliament. It could have achieved these things
simply by amending the statutes that govern personnel in the
public sector.
That is not just my view. It is the view of the Canadian Tax
Foundation which published an article suggesting that was a
possibility. It is the view of the Library of Parliament, which
produced an opinion for us that confirmed various amendments to
existing statutes could have achieved the desired objective of
greater flexibility in personnel management. I want to be
absolutely clear for the record. That alleged rationale simply
does not hold up.
Another rationale which the government presented for this
legislation was that it would create greater efficiency through
the removal of much of the current overlap and duplication
between the provincial and federal governments in tax collection
and administration. The bill would concurrently reduce
compliance costs for businesses which today must fill out tax
forms and in some provinces must comply with two separate tax
bureaucracies. The government argues sensibly that compliance
costs would be reduced under a single tax agency since the
business taxpayer would only have to fill out one corporate tax
form as opposed to two.
The government solicited an opinion from the Public Policy Forum
which indicated there would be a potential savings to the economy
of a couple of hundred million dollars through reductions in
compliance costs if all 10 provinces were to participate in the
agency proposal. That is the big caveat. The government has
thrown around this argument about efficiency gains and reduced
compliance costs and at the same time it has not told Canadians
this requires the full, complete, unanimous participation of all
10 provinces.
It is absolutely evident to all with eyes to see that this
agency does not have the support of all 10 provinces or even a
majority of provinces or even a single province, at least as of
this date. We know of only one province. The Government of Nova
Scotia has indicated its willingness to participate in a very
modest way with this new agency through the administration of its
workers compensation system. The Government of Nova Scotia could
very easily have contracted with Revenue Canada to assist it with
its WCB system under the current departmental model of Revenue
Canada. Bill C-43 is completely unnecessary to achieve the
objectives of such provinces as Nova Scotia participating on the
WCB front.
What do we see as we look across the country from Newfoundland
and Labrador to British Columbia? After nearly two years of
consultation and pressure and lobbying on the part of the
Minister of National Revenue, at least nine provinces have
indicated that they are not prepared to sign on to this new
agency.
The minister and government members will say that the provinces
have not said that they are opposed to the idea.
1050
Certainly the Government of Quebec has indicated that it has
absolutely no interest whatsoever in any circumstances of ceding
tax collection authority to this new federal agency.
The province of Ontario has indicated publicly and to me in
writing through the Minister of Finance, Mr. Eves, that it has no
particular interest at this point. The Government of Ontario has
suggested that it is looking at greater flexibility, not greater
federal control over its tax collection and tax policies through
the possible opting out of the federal-provincial income tax
collection agreements and the adoption of a tax on income process
as opposed to the tax on tax which currently exists.
Similarly the province of Alberta and its provincial treasurer
Mr. Day have indicated that they really have no interest in this,
at least at this point. The province of Alberta is looking at
some rather dramatic changes in tax policy which would perhaps
preclude any efficiencies gained by participating with a single
revenue agency such as the one proposed in this bill.
As we look across the country we see at least three provinces
which seem to be out of the game and we see six or seven other
provinces which are not really interested but have not yet closed
the door. Why is the government proceeding with legislation
which is predicated on the participation of the provinces whose
basic rationale is co-operation between the provincial and
federal governments, when the other partners, that is to say the
10 provinces, have not yet offered to participate and have not
yet agreed to engage in this new agency? This is a legitimate
question and one which the minister has not yet provided an
adequate answer to.
With respect to flexibility of personnel management and human
resources and with respect to efficiency through the reduction of
overlap, duplication and compliance costs, we see that the
government has not made its case.
Having said those things, I think the basic structure of the
bill is not malignant. As I mentioned, there are incremental
improvements in public sector administration which could be
achieved through other statutes.
Let me add parenthetically that the changes to employment
practices contemplated by this bill could very easily be and
ought to be applied to every department of the government. The
minister has made a compelling case that the current Treasury
Board guidelines with respect to the employment of public
servants are far too rigid and far too bureaucratic and do not
create a culture of efficiency in the revenue department. If that
is the case in the revenue department, as I believe it to be,
then equally it is the case in other government departments.
I would ask the government why it is prepared to change the
personnel regime with respect to Revenue Canada, the largest
government department which employs approximately 40,000 to
45,000 individuals, but it is not prepared to apply the same
principles of personnel management to every department of
government. Why is the government not prepared to do what the
Government of the United Kingdom has done with respect to its
agencies? Why is the government not prepared to do what the
Government of New Zealand has done with respect to the
corporatization of the public sector there?
We could apply these same principles elsewhere without
diminishing parliamentary accountability if this legislation is
crafted properly. It makes very little sense for the government
to be myopically focused on one department while leaving the rest
of the public service in the current strictures of the Treasury
Board rules.
Our principal concern on Bill C-43 is the potential for
diminished parliamentary accountability, for accountability to
Canadian taxpayers who after all are the people who really hold
sovereignty in this country. These are the people who day after
day put in an honest day's work and come home to find that up to
half of their paycheque has been consumed by politicians and
bureaucrats at all three levels of government.
These are Canadians, the vast majority of whom are honest,
law-abiding taxpayers who want to comply with the tax laws. They
want to pay their fair share but they have felt increasingly over
the past years that they are paying more than their fair share.
1055
The average Canadian is working harder today than he or she ever
has before in Canadian history. Statistics Canada tells us that
the average Canadian family now works longer hours and more hours
with more two income families than at any point previously in our
history, yet they are coming home with less money in their
pockets after tax. Why? Not because they are not working hard
enough, not because people in the private sector economy are not
taking enough risks, but it is because governments continue to
consume a larger and larger percentage of the fruits of the
labours of Canadian taxpayers.
Revenue Canada every business day collects roughly a billion
dollars. That is a billion dollars sucked out, hoovered out of
the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. I see even you are
flabbergasted, Mr. Speaker. It is remarkable. We sit here in
this place thinking that this is sort of commonplace; we
authorize another spending bill, authorize another tax bill and
sooner or later it all adds up.
That is not my figure. It is the figure of the minister of
revenue. He is quite proud of boasting that his department
collects a billion dollars each business day. It is about $120
billion that is collected in normal revenues, the gross revenues
of the GST plus corporate tax revenues. The figure is enormous.
At the end of the day, Canadians are telling us that they are
paying too much tax, that the tax system is too complex. Too
often when they are dealing with Revenue Canada, they feel guilty
until proven innocent under the current tax system. That is just
plain wrong.
A voluntary system such as ours which relies on voluntary
compliance requires the absolute trust of taxpayers in the
collection system. The moment that trust is impugned, the moment
Canadians lose trust in the tax collection process, the basis of
a voluntary compliance system is thrown into question.
That is why we need to be absolutely certain in debating this
bill that the agency we are creating enhances and does not
diminish the trust between the taxpayer and the tax collector. It
is why we must be absolutely clear that this bill strengthens
rather than weakens the accountability of the tax collectors in
this agency to taxpayers through their elected representatives in
this parliament.
It would be a grave error were we to adopt a bill which included
even the possibility, the mere potential of a diminishment of
parliamentary accountability of the tax collecting agency and
that accountability through this parliament to taxpayers.
Parliament came into being as members well know largely as a
result of the tension between the commoners, the taxpayers in
earlier parts of our history and the crown. Parliament
essentially became the body which ensured that the taxes
collected by the crown were done so in a fair, legal and
democratic way. It ensured that no one, including the monarch,
was above the law.
And here we are today contemplating the passage of a bill that
will give the executive branch of government further enormous
power in tax collection through this agency and has the potential
of diminishing parliamentary accountability. The minister will
say that he remains responsible for the revenue agency under this
bill and that therefore the accountability could not possibly be
diminished.
1100
Among other substantive amendments put forward by the opposition
last night, the government voted against a motion in my name
saying that the minister was responsible for “all aspects of the
revenue agency”. We simply wanted some minor amendments to
clarify that the minister would be responsible for all aspects of
the agency because the bill is unclear about that.
The bill gives responsibility to the minister in section 6, but
later it gives responsibility for the agency to a board of
management in section 14. Even later it gives responsibility to
a chair in section 22, and in later sections of the bill it gives
responsibility to a commissioner.
The government says these are different kinds of responsibility
that will be exercised in different ways. I do not understand
that bureaucratic bafflegab. All I understand is that the bill
takes responsibility, which today is completely in the hands of
the minister who is accountable to the House and through the
House to millions of Canadian taxpayers, and delegates it to a
board of patronage appointees, to a commissioner appointed by
cabinet and to this agency. Where does the buck stop? It is not
absolutely clear.
It is with the very grave concern of diminished accountability
that we in the official opposition have proposed a series of
amendments which would enshrine due process in the tax collection
administration of the government. We have proposed a taxpayer
bill of rights and the creation of an office for taxpayer
protection, which we say would strengthen and deepen
accountability rather than diminish it.
Why is that necessary? I have talked about the theoretical
argument that tax collection is an awesome power. Next to the
criminal law power that we wield in parliament, the power to
collect taxes is the most significant and potentially destructive
power. Some have said that the power to tax is the power to
destroy. It is an awesome power that we wield here. It is an
awesome power that we grant to officials of the revenue
department and the future revenue agency to exercise on our
behalf, on behalf of the crown and parliament.
Sometimes, believe it or not, that power is abused. The
Minister of Revenue thinks his department and all his 45,000
officials are completely above and beyond reproach. I have no
doubt that most of them are, but I equally have no doubt that
from time to time, in fact every day, honest, law-abiding,
voluntarily complying Canadian taxpayers find themselves harassed
by overzealous, non-compassionate and out of control tax
bureaucrats.
Every member of the House, I am sure, has faced case files from
constituents who have done everything according to the law,
everything ethically, exercised due diligence and have
nevertheless found themselves getting the short end of the stick
from Revenue Canada.
I raise the matter, for instance, of Mrs. Suzanne Thiessen from
Winnipeg. I have raised this matter before in question period
and elsewhere. Suzanne Thiessen is a Manitoba taxpayer who found
last year that she had to make an insurance claim with the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, the MPIC. She discovered
that somehow, without her authorization, the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation had obtained confidential knowledge from
her tax returns to the MPIC.
How does it happen? The minister says that confidentiality will
not be compromised by the bill. He says it is not by the current
department, but we know that is not the case because I have
received through the Thiessens and others over half a dozen files
of individuals in Manitoba who had their confidential tax
information leaked by Revenue Canada to that provincial crown
corporation.
1105
This is against the law, but what can somebody like Mrs.
Thiessen do? She is a person of ordinary means. She cannot
afford to hire some high priced downtown Winnipeg tax lawyer. She
is not connected to senior officials in the department, so she
complains and raises her concern with a member of the opposition,
as well she should. Part of our role is to act as ombudsmen.
I am duty bound to raise the matter with the minister of
revenue, as I have done twice in the House. What kind of
response do we get to this breach of confidentiality? None
whatsoever. The minister and his previous parliamentary
secretary have said on this file that they would look into it.
This was more than six months ago and we still have not get
received an answer.
When it comes to the confidentiality of Mrs. Thiessen's tax
information, the current process of accountability did not work.
It will be even less likely to work under the governance of the
new agency, its commissioner and board that are not immediately
accountable to parliament.
I have raised what I think is the most outrageous case of
taxpayer abuse with which I am familiar, the case of Janice
Collingridge, a lady who lives in Calgary. Janice Collingridge
is a high stem quadriplegic. She cannot move. She cannot speak.
She cannot breathe without the assistance of a respirator. She
lives independently in an apartment with the assistance of a
provincial government disability grant. The provincial
Government of Alberta has provided her with this grant to
contract with home care workers to come in and help her live
independently.
Mrs. Collingridge was going about her life, living independently
with the assistance of the grant, and along came the tax cops
from Revenue Canada who said that they were going to audit Mrs.
Collingridge's books. She asked “What is there to audit? All I
get is the grant”. They said they were going to take a look at
how she was spending it.
They found that Mrs. Collingridge using some modern technology
had managed to print out on a computer some kind of a work
schedule for her home care contractors. The Revenue Canada
bureaucrats said they were sorry to tell Mrs. Collingridge that
the work schedules constitutes essentially terms of employment.
These people who are working in her home were actually employees,
not contractors, and she is therefore liable to pay Revenue
Canada over $5,000 in back payroll taxes because they have been
employees of hers for years and she has been evading taxes.
Can we believe it? This is more money than she has in her life
savings. She is a high stem, low income, non-verbal
quadriplegic, and the officials of the government dragged her
into tax court in Calgary. These heartless, cruel and
non-compassionate tax collectors trying to meet their de facto
quota dragged this person who does not have the resources, even
the physical resources, to defend herself into court. They tried
to shake her down for that $5,000 plus interest and penalties.
That is what is wrong with the tax system.
I have raised this matter with the minister. I know there are
other matters like it. Tax lawyers can tell us about them. MPs
can tell us about them. What does the minister say? He says
“We will take a look at the file”. No response.
I raised it in September 1997. It has been 12 or 13 months with
no answer as to whether the government believes that home care
grants from the government to the severely disabled constitute
taxable income for payroll tax purposes. It will not answer that
question.
If the minister who has to sit here and evade my questions will
not answer them and will not look into this kind of gross and
extreme abuse, how much less likely is he to answer, if he can
say “Mr. Speaker, I am the minister responsible for an agency
and there is a board and a commissioner in place which have to
deal with these policies. I as minister cannot possibly second
guess those officials?” That is my concern. It is a serious
concern that has not been addressed by the government.
That is why exercising our responsibility to provide an
alternative to the government, the official opposition has put
forward a series of amendments which would ensure that the
Suzanne Thiessens and the Janice Collingridges of the country and
thousands of others receive the help that is needed.
I will comment on another case. It is a case of a dentist in
Calgary who came to my office recently to tell me what had
happened.
He was subdividing some land he owned for development. Before
the subdivision he sought a ruling from Revenue Canada,
exercising his due diligence as an honest and ethical taxpayer,
as to whether or not GST would be applicable to the sale of these
lots. A Revenue Canada official looked at it and responded with
a letter, an opinion, saying no, that under the current tax laws
the sale of these lots would not have GST applied to them.
1110
This honest taxpayer sold his lots and made his profit after
having taken a risk and having created some wealth for our
economy. A year later Revenue Canada came along and said
“Excuse me, sir, but we are afraid to inform you that the day
before you sold those lots Revenue Canada sent out an
interpretation bulletin changing its understanding of the tax act
and the application of the GST. We are now telling you our
ruling notwithstanding, that you are to be retroactively assessed
tens of thousands of dollars in back GST on those lots. Even
though you exercised due diligence, even though you planned
according to the information we gave you, we sent out an
interpretation bulletin that probably not more than a half dozen
bureaucrats and tax lawyers read, and you are going to have to
pay us back taxes”.
Those kinds of things happen every day of the week in Canada.
There is no accountability when it happens. There is no way that
people like the Janice Collingridges, the Suzanne Thiessens and
the thousands of others have recourse to high price tax lawyers.
Janice Collingridge only managed to get her matter thrown out of
court because she had a lawyer offer her assistance pro bono.
That is why we have proposed the adoption of a taxpayers bill of
rights. Let me be crystal clear. I said all along to the
government that if it were to adopt or agree even to consider
adopting a taxpayers bill of rights and an office for taxpayer
protection along the lines of what we have proposed, we would
support the bill because we would see enhanced rather diminished
accountability. The government has not even had the
straightforwardness to respond to our offer.
What would the proposed taxpayers bill of rights do? Essentially
it would enshrine in one piece of legislation all the rights to
due process taxpayers ought to have. Some people would ask
whether we already have a taxpayers bill of rights. No. What we
have is a declaration of taxpayers rights brought in by then
minister Perrin Beatty in 1985. It is a worthwhile document.
Basically it is a motherhood statement, but it has no teeth, no
sanctions. It is just a statement of principle. It is not
legislation. It does not have statutory force. It does not
impose any sanctions on Revenue Canada if it steps out of bounds.
Our taxpayers bill of rights has teeth, has sanctions and
clearly guarantees accountability. It would, among other things,
enumerate the right of taxpayers to understand the tax laws they
are required to comply with in plain language. It would give
them the right to be treated in a professional manner by the
agency. It would give them the right to complain about poor
treatment or service and to receive a written response from the
employee's supervisor. If the response is not satisfactory, the
taxpayer would have the right to be heard by more senior
officials. It would give taxpayers the right to pay the amount
of tax required by law and no more. Revenue officials would be
required to inform taxpayers of overpayment.
We recently saw in the auditor general's report cases where
millions of dollars were collected in overpayments by the
government, millions coming from pensioners on fixed incomes who
cannot afford tax accountants and are paying more than they
should.
It would give taxpayers the right to know for what purpose
information will be used and what penalties will apply if
information is not provided. It will give them the right to
represent themselves or appoint someone to act in their place in
any dealings with the agency, and the right to record any and all
meetings with agency officials without being required to give
advance notice.
It would give them the right to continue to to appeal agency
rulings, first administratively through the existing appeals
branch and a fairness process and, if necessary, through the
judicial system. It would require that the agency waive
penalties and interest wherever it can be shown that a taxpayer
acted in good faith, as the dentist in Calgary did with respect
to his lot sales, and without the intention to evade, or where
the taxpayer relied upon incorrect advice provided by an agency
official as in the case I mentioned.
1115
In cases where penalties and interests can cause severe
financial hardship or in cases where reassessments can be proven
to cause severe financial hardship, alternative arrangements
could be made through abatement or negotiated repayment
schedules. Where fraud or evasion is suspected, officials would
be permitted to seize or freeze assets after first demonstrating
a compelling reason why such action should be taken and taxpayers
would have the right to complain to the office for taxpayer
protection in cases where freezing or seizing of assets could be
expected to create serious financial hardship for others.
We have cases where that has happened, including a disabled
young man in Niagara who had his personal bank account frozen
because Revenue Canada was investigating his father. He could
not pay rent or buy groceries.
All these rights I have just enumerated would be enforced by a
taxpayer ombudsman, or the office for taxpayer protection, who
could issue taxpayer protection orders where necessary to protect
taxpayers from arbitrary treatment or treatment that could lead
to undue financial hardship. He would report to parliament once
a year. He would give a summary of at least 25 of the most
serious problems encountered by Revenue Canada. He could assist
taxpayers in resolving disputes with the agency. He could make
recommendations on changes to the administrative and legislative
apparatus of the agency.
I hope the government will give serious consideration to this
honest effort on our part to deepen accountability in the tax
collection process. I regret that because it has not yet done
so, as the official opposition we have to vote against Bill C-43.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before I start my presentation on Bill C-43, I would like to
inform you that it has been agreed that I would be sharing my
time with my charming colleague from Rimouski—Mitis.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent
to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I
thank the members of this House for allowing me to share my
speaking time.
Apparently, to lead is to listen, to consult and to act. With
respect to Bill C-43, I am sure that our friends across the
floor did not listen. I want to give an example that occurred
during the clause by clause analysis of the bill.
My colleagues from the opposition, the hon. members for Calgary
Southeast, Regina—Qu'Appelle and Kings—Hants, moved good and
sensible amendments to this bill, but what did the Standing
Committee on Finance do? It simply packed the gallery with
Liberal members and gagged the opposition. Opposition amendments
were ignored, which prompted the Bloc Quebecois to say “If that
is how you want to play it, we will introduce 118 motions in
amendment to make fun of the government.”
Only 18 organizations and some 50 people testified before the
committee. Only two of these 50 individuals were totally in
favour of Bill C-43. These were our revenue minister,
naturally—the bill is his brainchild and I think he is somewhat
proud of it—and André Vallerand.
1120
Mr. Vallerand, as members will remember, is a former Quebec
revenue minister under Robert Bourassa, a good Liberal. He did
not come to tell us about the benefits or the flaws of Bill C-43.
He simply came to talk like a politician, to discuss things and,
I imagine, to get contracts from his Liberal friends in Ottawa,
since Mr. Vallerand's company does consultation work and so on.
Of all the other organizations, none was fully supportive of the
bill. Most were lukewarm, if not cold to this legislation, and
the unions were totally opposed to it.
But this bogus committee refused to hear the 18 organizations
that came here, that travelled to Ottawa to express their views.
Incidentally, it is not the first time there are problems with
this federal committee. Last year, I was a member of the
Standing Committee on Finance. We travelled across Canada to
hear testimonies on what should be included in the budget of the
Minister of Finance for the current year. No proposal made by
these witnesses was included in last year's budget.
This year, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and the other
opposition parties who travelled across the country are telling
us that not much of what they heard during the hearings is
included in the report which, incidentally, was leaked to the
media, as seems to be the trend right now.
It got the same treatment as many other reports that are
supposed to be kept secret until tabled and read in the House,
but that are leaked to the newspapers instead. They are leaked
to friends. Why? To impress people? I have no idea.
If governing is about listening and consulting, my friends
across the way have a lot to learn. Governing is about
respecting people. With the arrogance we have come to know,
this government simply gagged us during clause-by-clause study of
the bill. They did the same at second and third reading. Is
that respect? No, it is not.
Another example of their lack of respect surfaced in the
newspapers with the report that the Prime Minister went to
Alberta to announce a youth assistance program.
Not one provincial minister, not even the premier of Alberta,
had heard anything about this new program. This is a flagrant
lack of respect.
Governing is about being fair. In the short year and a half
since my arrival in this place, I have seen daily examples of
the government members' unfairness. They are arrogant,
bulldozing ahead like little dictators, doing what they want
with no concern about respect.
There was the example of the millennium scholarships that were
supposed to get the Prime Minister some publicity. What did the
government do? It consulted nobody. It poked its nose into
areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education. It
invested billions of dollars, telling Canadians and Quebeckers
that it was running the country. This is disrespectful and
unfair.
1125
The government over there is patting itself on the back for
having attained zero deficit and for now making a profit. A
profit at whose expense? The provinces'. Since 1993, all the
profit the government has made accounts for 49% of the cuts it
has made in payments to the provinces for health, social
services and education. Yet the government's expenditures in
health, education and social services are only 17.2%.
Where is the fairness in slashing, in strangling, instead of
doing some tidying up, putting affairs in order? Speaking of
cutting back on waste, it is no big deal, a mere $220,000 the
development bank in Montreal decided to invest in golf courses,
not in their facilities but in memberships. A mere $220,000.
Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue told us “No problem. This is an agency and they
are supposed to be able to govern themselves properly. Golf
memberships are a recognized business practice”. I'd like to
know the Royal Bank's golf budget. I doubt it spends $220,000 a
year on golf in the Montreal region. This shows a lack of
respect.
Governing also means making choices. The government has chosen
to establish agencies.
From the experience it acquired with the agencies it has already
established, it ought to be able to understand that the customs
and revenue agency is quite simply doomed to failure like the
rest or to look after and provide jobs for the friends of those
in power. In my opinion, this is not sufficient grounds for
establishing an agency which will cut at least 40,000 public
service jobs in the public service.
The majority of the representatives of the 18 organizations that
appeared before the committee told us that the department of
revenue had many shortcomings, but was improving considerably
and a good team could be created there, since we have what is
required to do so. Even the auditor general says the agency
will not remedy the current problems in the department of
revenue. That is what our auditor general says.
Why spend money to create another level of public officials?
The appointment of a commissioner and a deputy commissioner
creates another level of officials. I think the only reason the
minister of revenue is keeping to this position is to please the
Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board by saying
“Our union is too powerful, so we will muzzle it”.
I mentioned existing agencies earlier. Before I give the floor
over to my friend the member for Rimouski—Mitis, I would like to
quickly go over the existing agencies. Let us look at the new
wheat board in western Canada.
1130
It comes. It goes. It flies by the seat of its pants. I do
not know whether there is one too many or one too few wheels in
the board, but we will soon find out.
There is Nav Canada, an agency that has relieved Transport
Canada of all responsibility for air traffic control. Nav
Canada simply decided to close the control tower in Gatineau.
Nav Canada closed the tower at Baie-Comeau. An accident occurred
at Baie-Comeau yesterday. Had there been controllers present at
the Baie-Comeau tower, help might have arrived more quickly and
more lives might have been saved. I do not know, but at least
chance would have been on our side in this instance.
Nav Canada said “No problem.
We will not cut jobs. At least for two or three years, we will
not cut jobs”. It has been only 18 months since the agency was
established and some 20% of jobs have been eliminated. What
happened to the promise? On questioning, the Minister of
Transport says “They are making adjustments. They are doing
their job. They are responsible”.
There is the ADM, the Montreal airports agency. This issue is
important to me and to all the members from the Lower
Laurentians, because it means the region's survival,
Previously, there was a good and interesting arrangement.
International flights landed in Mirabel and local and North
American ones in Dorval. The year before they decided to close
Mirabel down partially, Dorval had made $12 million in profit,
Mirabel $13 million.
It was not a record profit, but neither was it a loss.
On the strength of misleading studies, ADM management sold all
of Quebec, including the Montreal region, on the idea that it
would be better to transfer all flights from Mirabel to Dorval.
This was done, but there has been chaos ever since. Flights are
backed up and many from Europe now go to Toronto, not even
stopping over in Montreal.
We have questioned the Minister of Transport and he replies that
it is not the government's fault, that the agency is responsible
for making its own decisions.
That is what we get with agencies. They are something a
minister can hide behind, instead of doing his job and answering
questions in the House about any problems in his particular
department.
He can wash his hands of his responsibilities.
The government is afraid to govern, afraid to do its job. But
its job is to make decisions that serve the interests of
Quebeckers and Canadians. Its job is to act in everyone's
interests, not just the interests of its friends and of the
rich.
It has been hinted that, after the next budget, the rich, those
earning over $50,000, would no longer pay the 3% surtax.
Governing is about making fair and equitable decisions, good
decisions in the economic interests of all Quebeckers and
Canadians. That is what governing is about, not what the
government is doing.
My twenty minutes are up, so I will turn the floor over to my
colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis. I have made it clear
that Bloc Quebecois members are completely opposed to Bill C-43
and that we will be voting against it, as will, I hope, most of
the opposition members.
1135
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today for two reasons. First of all, because I
would like to take part in this debate concerning Bill C-43,
which establishes the Canada customs and revenue agency, but
also to fulfill a commitment made by me on November 27, when I
accepted a mandate from Quebec City radio personality Robert
Gillet.
Every week, the private radio station he works for gives out the
bolo award to the person who gets the most listener votes. On
November 27, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was voted by the
people of Quebec as the bolo award winner, for her involvement
in the olympic games bids.
So, I can say mission accomplished as far as the bolo award for
the hon. member for Hamilton East is concerned.
Now, for a more serious mission, addressing Bill C-43. What
amazes me is that no one, or virtually no one, in the Quebec and
Canadian public seems to be aware of what is going on at the
present time in the House in this connection.
This weekend I had the opportunity to meet a number of my
constituents. I asked them all “What do you know about the
Canada customs and revenue agency?” No one could answer, and
yet we have spent a number of hours debating this already.
I asked myself why the information was not reaching the public.
We have to find a way to inform people. It may be that our
debates so far have been much too abstract for the public to
realize the importance of this issue. We are discussing an
extremely important issue, but the public does not seem to be
aware of it.
The opposition made it clear why it objects to this bill. Since
I was going to take part in today's debate, on the weekend I
surfed the Internet to see what had been said last week, at
second reading and during the clause by clause review at report
stage.
I learned a few good ones. Among other things, I realized that
the government introduced a bill that is a further symptom of
the degenerative disease that has plagued it at least since the
days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a disease better known as “acute
centralizationitis”. I know of no other disease that is a
greater threat to Canada's future. This government never stops
accusing us of acting in bad faith, of saying that we want to
break up the country. Come to think of it, we did everything we
could to save Canada, if only with the arguments we put forward
during the debate on Bill C-43.
The government's negligence gives us one more reason to want to
leave this country, because the government is truly insensitive
to the perverse effects of this legislation.
The government has no qualms about creating a legal framework
that will allow it to look over the provinces' shoulder at will,
even though it means interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
1140
This is a government that imposes gag orders in order to keep
the opposition quiet and keep it from playing its role,
basically.
Everyone knows this arrogant Liberal government forgets it has
the support of only 38% of the population. So, the 62% of the
population that we on this side of the House represent is trying
to convince the government that it cannot proceed with its bill.
It is a ridiculous bill that most Canadians reject.
So, day after day this government shows us its very twisted view
of Canada's future.
If the Liberal government were more democratic and less
dictatorial, it would allow the opposition to express its
dissent, especially because, since June 2, 1997 when it was
unfortunately returned to power, this government has done
nothing valid. It lets the time go by. It manages time, that
is all. When things do not suit it, it manages time by stifling
the opposition.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It takes out the baseball bat.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, as my colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm has said, it takes out the baseball bat or
its pepper shakers, which I add on my own.
So the government does not let the opposition express its
dissent. On the contrary.
This minority government in terms of votes and barely majority
government in terms of seats was so afraid of having a hard time
controlling its majority that it gave you, Mr. Speaker, the
honour and us the pleasure of allowing you to sit, as an
opposition member, even, in the Chair during our debates.
This says just how much Canadians decided. But I invite them
seriously, right off, to follow the debates in this House daily
so they do not get taken in the next election and can decide
that the government deserves a holiday on the opposition benches
next time.
Let us look at the situation a little more closely.
Ever since it came to this House five years ago, the Bloc
Quebecois has consistently supported the government whenever the
bill before us was well structured, everything looked great and
we had assurances from officials that all was in keeping with
the many international treaties Canada is a party to.
We did, on occasion, suggest to the government a number of
amendments, some of which the government actually accepted
because, more often than not, these opposition amendments
improved the government bill under consideration.
In such cases, after a healthy debate that was beneficial to the
people of Quebec and Canada, we helped move the bill forward, we
did not object to it, we let the government take the necessary
votes, where we either approved the bill or registered our
dissent, without unduly dragging out debate.
However, on a number of occasions, the Bloc Quebecois did object
to the speedy passage of a bill, which we felt did not make any
sense, was not consistent with the interests of Quebec or
Canada, lacked clarity or invaded provincial jurisdiction, or
was too complex and required further consultation.
We also stood our ground if the bill represented a major change
from how we thought things should be done and the government was
not allowing us enough time to present our views or was simply
not interested in hearing what we had to say.
If anyone were to compare the number of times we have stood our
ground in the last five years to the number of ridiculous bills
the government used its majority to pass, we, the opposition
parties, would win the day, compared to the government, which
has bungled several bills, often completely ignoring
accountability, and which is now taking cover behind a series of
agencies so as not to be seen mismanaging the country.
1145
It is interesting that every time the opposition's views
differed substantially from those of the government, closure was
invoked and any continuation of debate that might have resulted
in common ground being found was squelched.
It is instructive to read all the impassioned speeches against
closure made by members of the Liberal Party when they were in
opposition, during the Mulroney era. In five years, the
Liberals have already beaten the Mulroney government's record.
Not a single government in recent democracy has gagged its
opposition as often as this one.
This shows how fundamentally unsure and dissatisfied they are
with what they are doing.
They are no longer able to stand us telling them what a rotten
job they are doing. They say “We will stop them from speaking,
because it could get out to the public that we are doing a bad
job”. The honeymoon continues, and until it is over, this
government thinks it can keep getting re-elected. But the
honeymoon is nearly over.
We criticize this government every day. Soon we will be
bringing out the horrible truths, and I do not know which one is
the worst.
There is something horrible about the arrogance of this
government, which has done nothing but mark time since June 2,
1997. This is a government that does not govern, one that
pockets the funds of workers and puts them to illegal use.
This is a government which contributes each and every day to
widening the gap between the haves and the have nots. This is a
government which is saying that it is prepared to turn millions
of dollars over to sports millionaires, while it refuses to pay
the unemployed the benefits they need to support their families.
This is a government which has unjustly slashed transfer
payments to the provinces in order to cut itself some slack to
invest in propaganda, waving the flag, giving contracts to
buddies, while middle-class taxpayers are getting poorer. This
is a government which makes a conscious effort each and every
day to ensure Quebec is punished, crushed, humiliated, made a
mockery of.
But there is even more. Last Friday in this House, the Minister
of Industry had the gall to not even try to hide his face when
he responded to a question from the member for Laurentides,
saying he was punishing us for having an opinion different from
his. It is this different concept of the organization of a real
federation that forces us, because he has understood nothing, to
leave and to advance our plan, which offers much greater
possibility for development and growth to the Quebec cultural
community than this centralizing vision, and especially that of
the Minister of Industry.
By imposing its gag order and ramming the bill through at third
reading, the government agrees wittingly—and that is the crazy
part—that the bill has major flaws, which will prevent it from
serving the interests of the people of Quebec and Canada.
By wanting the bill passed at any cost, the federal government
is gagging us to force us to end this debate before all the
members have had a chance to express their ideas.
There is no urgency in this area. There was some urgency with
respect to other bills, including the one on periodicals. There
was some urgency about it, in order to protect an industry.
When it comes to protecting an industry, the government is in no
hurry, even though the opposition parties were offering to
co-operate, with the exception of course of the Reform Party. We
could have moved more quickly with that bill. It was to defend
one of our industries, to defend Canadian culture. No, the
government preferred to push ahead with a bill that will cause
harm to everyone in Quebec and Canada.
There is no national crisis, nor international one. This bill
requires major improvements.
1150
Many provisions should have been included at report stage to
make the bill acceptable to most parties in the House. This bill
is far from enjoying unanimous support. Quite the contrary.
The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who worked so hard to
try to improve this legislation and who participated in the
hearings, told the House that, when the committee conducted its
clause by clause review of the bill, 18 groups, organizations or
individuals came to the committee to state their views on this
legislation.
Two witnesses who appeared before the committee supported the
bill: the minister who tabled it, and André Vallerand, a former
Quebec revenue minister under Mr. Bourassa.
Because he is a good Liberal, Mr. Vallerand probably came to do
some lobbying, just in case—he had carefully reviewed the
bill—the government might need a chair, a deputy chair or a
commissioner for that customs and revenue agency. He told himself
“I will go to Ottawa and tell them their bill is perfect. This
will get me a good job”.
The qualifications listed in the act for the positions of chair,
commissioner or director are that the appointees must be
Canadian citizens, but cannot be members of the Senate or House
of Commons, or full-time public servants. An exception is made in
the case of the commissioner.
Mr. Vallerand came and told the committee how great this
agency would be. However, the 16 other groups that appeared
before the committee explained, one after the other, why this
agency should not be established as proposed. Some were lukewarm
to the idea, some were timid in their objections, while others
were very much opposed to the agency. The 16 other groups or
organizations that appeared had strong reservations against the
bill. But the government turned a deaf ear.
Our opposition is based on a large number of major and important
reasons. The government turned a deaf ear not only to the groups
that appeared before the committee, but to all the opposition
parties. It is rejecting our input and it refuses to change
anything.
It is frustrating to work as hard as the hon. member for
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles did, only to run into a wall of
misunderstanding.
To submit our recommendations, table our research or express our
concerns would be pointless. The government is not interested in
what the opposition can bring to this debate, because they know
that, with a majority in the House, they can impose this
legislation. Its meagre 38% of the popular vote should be enough
to remind them to be more cooperative, more careful, more open,
less arrogant and less conceited.
Bill C-43, which establishes the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, is an extremely important piece of legislation that
affects all Quebeckers and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to point out to our dear
friends who are watching this debate that, by setting up this
Customs and Revenue Agency, the Liberal government led by the
little guy from Shawinigan is giving them, on Christmas Eve, a
poisoned gift.
I want the people to know how harmful this agency will be. I
hope everyone who hears this message will repeat it to a family
member during the holidays.
People throughout Quebec and Canada should know that, while
thinking about giving tax breaks to our sports millionaires, the
government is spinning a web in which they hope to catch every
taxpayer owing a penny to Revenue Canada, but from which the
rich will find it easy to escape, as usual.
I urge the people to use their privilege and make
representations to their senators, in the other place, since
they will have to rely on their cooperation to railroad such a
harmful, vicious and dangerous bill for the people of Quebec and
Canada.
1155
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-43 on behalf of the New Democratic
Party.
Bill C-43 will repeal the Department of National Revenue Act and
convert Revenue Canada from a fully accountable government
department to an autonomous arm's length business oriented
agency. The proposed legislation, Bill C-43, sets out new powers
of the minister, the structure of the new agency and its
authority over all matters relating personnel management,
contracting, organization, the prescription of user fees, general
administrative policy and real and intellectual property. In
addition, the agency is given authority on legislation which for
most other federal departments and agencies is vested in the
Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. For instance,
the agency will have full authority to enter into agreements with
its bargaining units.
The objects of the agency reflect the current mandate of Revenue
Canada such as customs services and trade administration, tax
administration, for example the GST, and the delivery of social
and economic benefits for provinces and the federal government.
The New Democratic Party opposes the passage of Bill C-43 and
has since it initial introduction. Why do we oppose Bill C-43?
We believe the creation of the customs and revenue agency would
for all intents and purposes be an abdication of political power.
We believe the agency is the largest Liberal Trojan horse for
privatization. Revenue Canada's 40,000 employees make up about
20% of the federal public service. The move would involve the
transfer of more than $2 billion in annual parliamentary
estimates. This is way beyond the concept of delivering better
services. It is part of the government's drive to privatize and
downsize the public service in the name of cost cutting. The
government glorifies the role of private sector appointees and
seems to think the public sector can only run on private sector
principles. The government would also take credit for slashing
expenditures by $2.2 billion.
We believe it is appalling that the control of tax collection
which is an historical prerogative of the state is abandoned by
stealth to the private sector. Even the most right wing
economists and classical philosophers such as Adam Smith and John
Locke acknowledge that collecting taxes is the raison d'être of
the state. Even Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl, both
champions of privatization, never went so far as to privatize
their tax agencies.
The NDP opposes a single privatized tax collection agency for
political reasons as well. The government is moving toward an
independent agency without the support of the four major
provinces. Nor does it have the support of the majority of its
workers. The major stakeholders are not buying into this idea.
The majority of public service workers oppose the concept of the
independent agency and stress that there is no valid reason for
it. There is no firm support by the provinces for a single
taxation agency. The federal government has reached no agreement
with the provinces, not even a non-binding letter of intent.
Ontario, Quebec and P.E.I. are firmly opposed to Bill C-43.
B.C. and Saskatchewan have not endorsed the concept. Alberta has
supported the concept of an independent agency for ideological
reasons. While Alberta does not have a sales tax and administers
its own programs, there is a fading possibility that it might
sign on the administration of its provincial income tax to the
agency.
While Mr. McKenna's New Brunswick supported the concept, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland have not bought into the concept but are
bound by their tax administration agreements to the federal
government and are unwilling to cede further authority. It is
clear that all provinces generally see the agency as an intrusion
into provincial jurisdiction.
Canadian businesses have major reservations about the proposed
agency. The public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue
Canada found that 40% of businesses surveyed by the PPF saw no
advantage to a single tax collection agency. Sixty-eight per
cent thought that a single tax agency would either increase their
compliance costs or have no impact at all.
The NDP opposes the creation of a single privatized tax
collection agency as well for economic reasons. There is no
valid case for an independent agency. The government claims that
the agency will bring about significant cost savings or stronger
partnership with the provinces. These are at best exaggerated.
1200
For example, the economic rationale for the proposed agency
originated in 1996. It was seen as a means of administering the
planned harmonized sales tax that would blend the federal GST and
provincial sales tax. The idea was originally set up so that the
Prime Minister could keep his promise to harmonize tax and hide
the GST. The agency's biggest savings were to come from the
harmonization which is a non-starter in all but three of the
Atlantic provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
The initial plans for a federal-provincial council on tax
administration were quietly dropped from the original agency
proposal.
Harmonization occurred in three of the Atlantic provinces while
Revenue Canada was a department. The overwhelming unpopularity
of the HST in the Atlantic provinces has eliminated any talks of
further extending it to the rest of Canada. Canadian taxpayers
are asked to support the creation of a new layer of bureaucracy
in the hope that the provinces might participate.
Both the auditor general and internal Revenue Canada reports
confirm that the government has lost billions of dollars because
of unaudited tax statements due to a shortage of qualified
auditors. The Provincial Institute of the Public Service of
Canada estimated that over $2 billion of tax revenue was lost in
1997-98 alone. The federal Liberal government gutted the civil
service workforce, inflicted a six year tax freeze to the
survivors and allowed executive managers an increase in
compensation of up to 19%.
It now has the gall to say it needs an independent agency to
afford hiring qualified auditors. Nothing prevents the
government from hiring these auditors now. The cost of hiring
these auditors is ridiculously low compared to the billions of
losses in tax revenues and to the lethal blows inflicted on the
morale of civil servants and thereby on the public in general.
The government is jeopardizing the careers and stability of
40,000 civil servants, the cost of which will be far exceeding
the tax and cost savings estimated at $116 million to $193
million for Canadian business and $37 million to $62 million in
administration costs for all governments.
The agency is an excuse to cut out workers and inflate executive
salaries, a worst case scenario for the civil service. Professor
Vern Krishna, head of the CGA tax research centre, University of
Ottawa, stated that these executive salaries could double or
triple. The 40,000 employees moving to the agency will be
considered to have transferred outside the federal public service
and receive reasonable job offers with only a two year employment
guarantee.
The plans to exclude the agency from the Public Service
Employment Act and establish it under the Public Service Staff
Relations Act means that employees will lose job security and the
right to negotiate staffing and classification matters. Thousands
of Revenue Canada employees will likely pay the price with their
jobs, as this was the case in Australia.
Employees of the agency will have no guarantee to the same right
of third party redress as other public service employees in case
of non-disciplinary demotion or termination. Details of the
recourse mechanisms are not available and are not provided by the
legislation.
The agency will impose user fees for specific services, for
example services that provide a specific benefit to service
recipients. The agency has every incentive to slap on user fees
because unlike revenues from tax proceedings that have been paid
into general revenues, the proceeds can be accumulated.
Tax collection is big business in Canada and this has the
potential for abuse.
1205
The agency has the potential to attract more business by
provinces and municipalities that will turn over to the agency's
administration more taxes and programs, including a property tax
and even payroll taxes such as workers compensation. This is a
lose-lose situation for jobs and will result in downsizing of
administrative and collection departments at the expense of
provincial and municipal civil servants.
The NDP opposes Bill C-43 for philosophical, ethical and
economic reasons. We believe Bill C-43 is both bad legislation
and dangerous legislation. To borrow from a slogan which we have
used regarding banks, we need a better taxation system, not a
bigger, privatized tax collection system. Canadians need a better
taxation system to move us into the 21st century, a taxation
system which is fair and equitable for all. For all these reasons
the NDP will be voting against Bill C-43.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to
Bill C-43.
The issue of cost savings is the one that has been trumpeted by
the government most vociferously, that the government can save
$171 million to $285 million in compliance costs and also savings
of $97 million to $162 million in administrative costs to the
taxpayers with this new Revenue Canada tax agency if all the
provinces sign on to it.
That is a very big if, because the fact is the government has
not been successful in achieving the agreement or the buy-in of
the province to date despite significant lobbying efforts by the
federal government. The track record of the government in this
area has not been that successful. For instance, only three
provinces have signed on to the concept of a blended sales tax,
those being in Atlantic Canada, one of which is Nova Scotia which
I represent.
The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers believes there will be no
major savings to the government by implementing Bill C-43 to
create this new Revenue Canada tax agency.
At a time when we should be focusing on tax reform, on reducing
the level of taxation and also in creating a fairer, flatter tax
code that actually enables Canadians to compete globally, we are
spending an inordinate amount of time focusing on the logistics,
on the minutia of tax collection, finding out better ways of
plucking the goose.
We have significant difficulties with this piece of legislation.
We have the risk of the amount of very personal, private
information concentrated in a new arms' length agency that will
not have the same direct linkage to parliamentarians that it does
today.
We have a difficulty with the fact that this heavy handed
approach of the federal government on any number of issues
continues to violate the principles of federal-provincial
relations. At a time when provincial governments like Ontario
are speaking about wanting more access to the levers, the
government is looking to create more or larger mega agencies to
effectively control the processes of government. At a time when
Canadians are looking for greater accountability this agency will
provide less accountability.
The biggest risk we have with the creation of this agency is the
potential to create an IRS type tax agency that will be less
impeded when it goes after Canadians. Currently there are
significant concerns that Canadians have right now with Revenue
Canada and the collection processes and the enforcement processes
that Revenue Canada has utilized over the years.
Those processes have improved over the last several years
largely due to political pressure from elected representatives in
the House, largely due as well to measures by former minister of
national revenue Perrin Beatty with his taxpayer bill of rights
which led the way to ensuring Canadians had more enshrined rights
in defending themselves against Revenue Canada.
Some of those principles are also being promoted by the Reform
Party currently in some of its motions and recommendations. We
are supporting those motions and recommendations which originated
with the Conservative revenue critic and eventually a
Conservative minister of revenue.
1210
The government has not articulated in a convincing way the
benefits to Canadians of this new agency. There are risks and
there is a down side to this agency. We are not convinced of the
government's validity and ingenuousness in promoting the benefits
or what the benefits are.
The government speaks euphemistically about the importance the
human resource factor has in its decision. It speaks about how
human resources cannot be maximized under the current civil
service. The government is actually talking about unions. It
says it is not capable of working with the public service in
Canada and the unions.
At a time when government should be a standard bearer in labour
relations and at a time when a government should be demonstrating
to Canadian companies how to work with labour and how to develop
policies that encourage productivity and forward thinking and
co-operative effort between management and labour, the government
is saying that it is not possible.
Chrysler Canada has as a member of its board a representative of
the CAW. In the U.S. automobile industry members of the boards
of the big three are from the unions. This government is saying
“We cannot work with the public service. We are willing to take
all these risks because we are willing to abdicate responsibility
for effective labour management and to offload that to an arm's
length agency”.
Governments should be setting an example in this area because
labour relations is a cornerstone of productivity. Good labour
relations can help demonstrate to all Canadian businesses how
they can become more productive. We should not be surprised that
the government is taking a hands off approach to productivity
issues. The Minister of Industry has said high taxes actually
encourage productivity. There has never been a statement of
economic illiteracy as profound as that. This is a government
whose minister responsible for the economic strategy and
industrial strategy of the country believes high taxes actually
help productivity. It is little wonder the government cannot
wrap its mind around the concept of positive labour relations as
a cornerstone of productivity.
It is little wonder the government does not accept its role in
both the secular decline of the Canadian dollar over the past
several years and, more specifically, the 9% decline in the
Canadian dollar over the last several months, 30% of which is due
to productivity that is lagging in Canada behind our trading
partners and behind the other OECD countries.
I will speak about the Canadian dollar and the relationship of
the government's decision on Bill C-43 and the idea of government
being unable to harness the power over the public service and has
seemed to improve productivity in the public service. It is
directly related to the Canadian dollar because a large
component, and perhaps some would say too large, of the Canadian
GDP is government related. If we do not get our minds around
creating a more productive and efficient public service as
opposed to trying to offload those responsibilities to arm's
length agencies and specifically to the private sector, we will
continue to wallow behind our trading partners in areas that are
very important like productivity.
On the dollar issue, I know the Prime Minister thinks it is
probably a good thing. He says it will increase tourism, which
actually represents 1% of our GDP. He is spending too much time
golfing and not enough time governing.
1215
The fact is that a low dollar does not benefit anybody. In the
short term there may be some minute benefits to Canadian
exporters. In the long term, however, we cannot devalue our way
to prosperity.
When lagging productivity within the public service is acting as
an albatross around productivity levels for all Canadians, this
is a time when the government should be embracing the opportunity
to take this department, Revenue Canada, which represents about
20% of the public service of Canada, and revolutionize the
delivery of service within that department.
This is a time when the government should be setting an example.
Instead the government is putting its hands up in the air and
saying “We give up. We can't do that. We are willing to risk
the downsides of this agency. We are willing to risk the
creation of an IRS type of agency that can run rampant over
Canadian taxpayers simply because we lack the intestinal
fortitude and the creativity to create good labour relations
within our own government”.
This is the same government that has referred to a tribunal the
pay equity issue and now it is backtracking on its commitment to
abide by what the tribunal said. It is no wonder that our pubic
service is at an all time low in terms of morale levels.
My cousin was headed for the public administration department at
Dalhousie University. We have had discussions over the years
about the similarities of public administration programs and
business administration programs. Many of the same skill sets
are taught in both business administration and public
administration schools.
The difference is that there are some people who have a certain
public ethic who want to be part of the public service, who want
to serve their country and who want to participate in a positive,
forward thinking public service that provides the best service to
Canadians. It is those people who are being let down by a
government that refuses to work co-operatively with the unions.
This is a government that refuses to create a sense of
co-operation, proactivity and productivity that can lead the
public service and set an example for all private sector entities
in Canada that can lead Canadian productivity rates upward as we
enter the 21st century.
I must say that I am not only frustrated with this legislation,
I am also frustrated with the haste with which this government is
pushing this flawed legislation through the House of Commons.
This bill represents legislation which would dismantle 20% of
the public service of the country, yet Canadians are hardly aware
of it. Canadians have not been consulted about it. There has
been some lip service paid to it and the minister has travelled
throughout the country and talked to some people. To my
knowledge, as recently as a few weeks ago, the minister has yet
to sit down to have a face to face meeting with the minister of
finance of Ontario. Ontario being the largest province in the
country in terms of population, it would certainly make sense for
the minister of revenue to sit down with the minister of finance
of Ontario to discuss a change in public policy of this
magnitude. But in fact the minister has not had a face to face
meeting with the minister of finance of Ontario.
There has been no real public consultation on this incredible
sweeping change. There has been no discussion. There has been
no cross-country consultation by the finance committee or a
sub-committee of the finance committee. That is what we have
suggested. We suggested that at committee. We suggested that in
this House.
That is the kind of consultation Canadians are looking for.
Canadians are looking for greater transparency in all of the
institutions that represent them, including the institution of
parliament and the institution of government.
A systemic abuse of power pervades this government. Its members
feel that if they have an idea it is obviously right and that
Canadians, whether they like it or not, are going to get it. What
this government has not realized is the degree to which Canadians
have evolved over the past 30 years, largely due to things such
as the Internet and the education system.
Canadians have access to the same information now that we do as
parliamentarians. In fact, Canadians who are utilizing the
Internet and utilizing the worldwide web have access to more
information than many parliamentarians in this House today.
1220
Thirty years ago we may have been judged based on the
information that Canadians did not have. I would not have been
judged because I was only one year old and it would have been
difficult to get elected at that point. However, 30 years ago
parliamentarians may have been judged based on the information
they had because they had access to more information than
Canadians.
Today, in an age where Canadians have access to the same
information, we are going to be judged based on the quality of
the decisions we make with that information. Canadians, in fact,
want input on that decision making process at a rate that is
unprecedented. Canadians want in. They want to participate in
these types of important decisions.
It is absolutely unconscionable that the government is pushing
ahead with legislation that will impact the lives of Canadians as
dramatically as this legislation will without actually consulting
Canadians and telling them the truth about the gravity of this
decision.
I call again on this government to do what is right and to
engage the finance committee. It should not treat the finance
committee as a branch of the ministry of finance or the ministry
of revenue. It should go back to the model used by the previous
Conservative government where Don Blenkarn led a finance
committee that had autonomy. It actually disagreed with the
government periodically. It actually did what committees were
supposed to do, and that is to stand up for Canadians.
I call on this government to stop its haste and pressure and
bullying opposition members into agreeing with its decisions and
to start engaging Canadians and giving Canadians some input to
ensure that the decisions we make as parliament, that the
decisions we make as individual members of parliament and as
caucuses reflect the views and the needs of Canadians.
We will not be supporting Bill C-43. I would hope that this
government would reconsider not just this legislation, but its
style and arrogance on any piece of legislation it has been
ramming through this House and pushing down the throats of
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments about the remarks made by my
colleague from Kings—Hants and to ask him a question.
He said he is a new member of Parliament, and we appreciate that
and congratulate him. He expressed frustration over the way the
government rammed Bill C-43 through the House by using a gag
order. He is asking the government to go back to the public for
renewed consultations.
Here is my question: Does he think that these renewed
consultations will be similar to those being held by the finance
committee, and that despite all the money and energy we put into
listening to those who come to testify and to table briefs, all
this will be ignored?
We see no trace of those consultations in the budgets tabled by
the finance minister. What is the use of consultations if all
the results are being shelved?
That was my question and I would like to hear the hon. member's
answer.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that
very important question. He is quite right that the committee
structure as it stands now in this Canadian Parliament, under
this government, has strayed significantly from what was
intended.
It was intended as a means by which independent members, private
members, could work together in a non-partisan way to gauge and
to receive the views of Canadians and then to discuss those views
as well as the expert advice of individuals who have intrinsic
knowledge in these areas and then to develop policies.
The difficulty with the current structure is that the committees
are being operated, by and large, as branches of the ministers'
offices. They were not intended for that purpose.
We spend our time travelling throughout the country, putting on
a charade for Canadians and pretending that their views are going
to be taken seriously.
Then we come back after weeks and weeks of travel, after hearing
hundreds of Canadians, and we devote, as we did yesterday, two
hours to the discussion on a draft report written by members of
the research staff. To their credit, they have been working very
hard and they deserve a lot of credit for their hard work in the
finance committee.
1225
If we devote weeks and weeks to listen to Canadians, and then
devote two hours for a discussion on those recommendations, it is
a sham.
We have seen a secular decline in the role of the MP. We have
seen an emasculation of MPs since the late 1960s in this House.
It is time, as the hon. member suggested, that private members
have an opportunity to contribute to the fullest of their
abilities and to actually participate in the creation of public
policy.
The best vehicle for that is through the committees. They
should be allowed to work in the way that they were initially
designed and in the way they worked under the previous
Conservative government under committee chairs like Don Blenkarn.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague from across the way for his remarks. I concur
with some of the points he has made, in particular with regard to
the arrogance of the Prime Minister and the arrogance of the
minister imposing this new structure on the people.
I think the Minister of National Revenue indicated he had not
been successful in getting the co-operation of the premiers to do
this, partly because he is not providing any safeguards.
The point my hon. colleague made a moment ago about the common
sense of the people and listening to what they have to say is
significant and I commend him for that.
Could the member outline how we could get a true picture of what
the people think? As well, could he suggest how we could get
some sort of true, honest to goodness co-operation among the
federal government, the minister and the premiers of the
provinces? Finally, how can we ensure that some of the privacy
violations that have taken place in the past will not be
perpetrated again by this new agency?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his question.
I will deal with the privacy issue first. Revenue Canada has
actually come a long way over the last several years in being a
kinder and gentler department. That is not to say that there are
not significant abuses periodically and that is not to say that
it could not be improved.
My fear is that the progress that has been made could be largely
undone if we develop an arm's length agency that will have,
whatever way the government cuts it, less accountability than the
current agency which is tied directly to parliamentarians in this
House as a department and which reports to a minister.
In terms of the basic ways to improve consultation with
Canadians, I would suggest that the government set a standard for
its committees and actually give committees the ability to pursue
public policy in a creative, non-partisan, consultative way.
There is no shortage of great ideas. Most of the people with the
greatest ideas are not in this House because they are too smart
to run politically or they are not masochists.
There are great ideas out there and we need to make our
political parties, our committees and this parliament more
receptive and welcome to those people who have good ideas.
As I mentioned earlier, Canadians have more access to
information now than they ever have before. We as a parliament
have a duty to engage Canadians in dialogue on public policy
issues, not to tell them what is good for them necessarily, but
to engage them in a discussion about what is good for them.
Periodically we could actually learn something.
We do not have to reinvent the wheel. We need to go back to the
committee structures that have existed and have been productive
in channelling public opinion and thought into good public
policy.
We also have to be careful that public policy does not simply
reflect short term public opinion. That can sometimes be bad as
well.
There are some great ideas out there and we need to work with
Canadians. If we work with Canadians and listen to some of the
expert advice out there we will find that Canadians want and need
a fairer, flatter tax code.
1230
As polling indicates Canadians recognize that we have the
highest tax of the G-7 countries. Despite what the Minister of
Industry has stated, this is an albatross on the productivity of
Canadians. It is holding us back as we enter the 21st century. It
is part of the secular decline in the Canadian dollar. In the
long term that decline can reduce productivity even further.
Canadian businesses are denied the opportunity to buy some of the
equipment and software they need to compete globally because much
of it is imported.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We could go a long way if
we were to ensure the committee structure as it exists was
actually used by the government and parliament the way it was
designed to be used. We should stop muzzling committees and
operating them like branch plants of the ministers' offices.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party. I am glad to hear him talk about
using committees. Since I have been here the department has
deliberately abused the committees.
There is one thing that bothers me with the federal and
provincial governments and it is part of the nineties. It
appears that it is actually deliberate that provincial and
federal governments stage information leaks. In doing so the
governments are able to get a course in public opinion for much
cheaper. That is an abuse of committees. It really makes
committees look like tools of the government that are not able to
fulfil their original purpose.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's comments. I would not want to accuse the government or
any committee member of leaking information. I do not know who
is leaking the information from the committees but eight
committees have had their reports leaked over the past several
months. That is clearly unacceptable.
In answer to this, the government is talking about clamping down
on the media. That is so perverse. As hon. members of this
House, we pledge a certain code of conduct. For the government
to say it will clamp down on the media is absolutely ludicrous.
An hon. member: It is a joke.
Mr. Scott Brison: The hon. member says that it is a joke.
It is quite perverse and it is a joke but it is not that funny.
It is a systemic issue that has to be dealt with. I would
certainly hope the government departments are not somehow behind
these leaks but it reduces the credibility of the individual
committees and it reduces the credibility and the impact of those
reports. Sometimes I fear the credibility of all
parliamentarians is reduced when this kind of behaviour exists.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to discuss Bill C-43, an
act to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency. As we
conduct this final House of Commons debate on Bill C-43, I would
like to talk about the people who work at Revenue Canada. I would
like to talk about the fellow citizens they serve, the fellow
citizens we serve.
It is the minister's firm conviction and it is my firm
conviction that the new Canada customs and revenue agency will be
good for our current employees and the Canadian public. We need
to show leadership. We need to create the conditions that will
make it possible to streamline the tax system. That is what the
agency will accomplish.
When I sit down with the department's employees, be it in
Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, or Windsor, I am
struck by their dedication and their determination to make the
system better.
They more than anyone understand the frustration of taxpayers
when they are confronted with different auditors from different
levels of government. They more than anyone see the need for new
technology to permit most Canadians to cross the border with a
simple Canpass so that time can be spent on higher risk areas.
They more than anyone see the need for faster hiring practices
and more flexible management of human resources.
1235
The employees of Revenue Canada see better than anyone how
taxpayers could benefit from a single window for taxes and
one-stop shopping for tax information.
Those are the reasons why we are proposing the new agency. If
we want a simpler system for taxpayers, we need to bring the
provinces and territories on side. If we want faster hiring and
more flexible human resources management, we need to create a
separate body with the authority for such issues as
classifications, training and development and terms and
conditions of employment.
[Translation]
The new agency would have such authority. At the same time, it
is critical to show that we value the Canadians who work at
Revenue Canada and who will work at the new agency. That is why
any personnel rules of the agency will be premised on fairness
and equity.
[English]
Under Bill C-43, permanent employees of Revenue Canada are
guaranteed two years of employment at the new agency. This
guarantee is more than any employees of the federal public
service now have. Collective agreements will remain in force.
Pension and leave credits will remain intact. Employees will
have the right to compete for jobs in the federal government
departments.
Believe me, the minister is determined that all employees will
be treated with fairness and decency. He will strengthen the
legislation to do just that.
The Public Service Commission will have the power to review and
report on the agency's staffing procedures. There will be a
mandatory review of recourse mechanisms by an independent party
after three years. And of course, there will be a five year
legislative review by parliament.
Perhaps more importantly, the Minister of National Revenue will
remain answerable for the actions of the agency on the floor of
this House of Commons.
I am convinced that the new agency will offer meaningful new
opportunities for employees. A reduction in the number of
occupational groups and levels will make it easier for employees
to move between jobs. There will be more career mobility.
Vacancies will be filled in a few weeks rather than many months.
A flexible agency will be able to adopt more extensive use of
flexible hours or work at home arrangements.
There are untold numbers of new possibilities to expand programs
and services for the provinces and territories. There are untold
possibilities for new ways of performing work, especially with
the growth of technology.
The critics say this is a downsizing exercise. I say with great
respect that they are 100% wrong. This is an upsizing measure
providing more opportunities for employees, more opportunities
for growth and more opportunities to serve Canadians more
effectively.
That brings me to the second half of the people equation:
service to the people of Canada. The employees of the Canada
customs and revenue agency will be better placed to serve the
needs of Canadians.
The small business owners in my riding of Hamilton Mountain are,
like millions of other Canadians, honest, hardworking people who
are willing to pay taxes. What has frustrated them over the
years is the paperwork from the federal government, from the
provincial government, from the regional government, from the
municipal government.
[Translation]
The new agency offers a genuine chance to bring an end to much
of that overlap and duplication. It offers a genuine opportunity
for all kinds of programs to be administered from a single
source.
[English]
By simplifying the process, we can save millions upon millions
of dollars for taxpayers. That too is a clear example of better
service to Canadians.
In its presentation before the Standing Committee on Finance,
the Public Policy Forum made a vital point. For big business the
cost of filing tax or customs forms is relatively small in
proportion to sales or profit. For small businesses however,
that is not the case at all. The filing of forms and the costs
of dealing with multiple audits is often a make or break
situation for a smaller company.
This new agency can be the first step on the road to righting
that situation.
1240
There is another way in which a new agency can help business
flourish in our country. With the phenomenal growth of
electronic commerce comes real concern about security and
privacy. If governments work together through the new agency, we
can make Canada the global leader in the development of the most
secure software and hardware.
[Translation]
The agency can be on the cutting edge in developing the programs
that will give Canadians the confidence to engage fully in
electronic commerce.
[English]
That is what this bill is all about. Better service through
savings in time. Better service through savings in money. Better
service through wise use of technology. Better service through
new opportunities for partnerships. Better service through more
employee flexibility and autonomy. Better service through
streamlining and simplifying. The people who work at Revenue
Canada will be the better for the agency. The people of Canada
will be better for the new agency.
Bill C-43 is a positive move for public servants and a positive
move for the public. We have put people first in establishing
the agency. We have put people first in the mandate of the
agency. We have put people first in the operation of the agency.
I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue for this bill. I
say to every member of parliament, let us pass this bill as
quickly as possible. In the end, this bill is in the public
interest. In the end, this bill serves the people of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like my colleague to read Hansard carefully tomorrow.
She says she spoke with the government employees at Revenue
Canada and that everyone is in favour. But she forgot to speak
with Mr. Lampron. The committee received a brief from Mr.
Lampron. She also forgot to speak with Mr. Flynn of Revenue
Canada and with Mr. Tutti, who lives in the riding of the chair
of the Standing Committee on Finance. She forgot to speak with
all these people.
The hon. member also said she consulted with small business
owners in her riding. Well, her riding is like no other riding
in Canada, for she claims that everyone is happy with the new
agency.
But the federation representing small and medium size
businesses across Canada submitted a brief featuring a survey it
conducted. The hon. member should have reviewed this survey and
its findings before delivering her speech.
It shows that 8.1% of those surveyed saw the new agency as a
very positive development; 24.8% as not very positive; 36% had
no opinion; 18.6% saw it as a negative; and 14.5% as very
negative. Where did my colleague get her information?
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I did speak to a lot of
people in the department, people across Canada and small
businesses. I have some questions that they brought to my
attention and the answers we were able to give them.
One of the questions I received from employees within the
department was when would the two year employment guarantee
begin. It will begin the day the agency becomes a separate
employer and employees are transferred. In all likelihood this
will be a few months after the passage of Bill C-43. Time is
going to be needed to establish the board of management. All
employees will be informed in writing with regard to the
effective date of the transfer.
Another question that was asked was would employees be able to
transfer to a government department after the two year guarantee.
The simple answer is yes. Agency employees will most definitely
be able to transfer with the same mobility rights that Revenue
Canada employees currently possess.
1245
We have also been asked by employees what employee benefits
carry over to the agency. The job offer that employees will
receive on the transition to agency includes the carryover of the
salary, core benefits such as health and disability insurance and
dental plan, accumulated sick leave and vacation credits, and
pension benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Years of services which are used for calculating leave
entitlement and severance pay will also carry over.
A question that I was asked just last week is what unions will
represent employees under the agency. On the given day that the
agency is created and becomes a separate employer, currently
existing collective agreements will remain in effect until they
are renegotiated. Employees will continue to be represented by
the same unions for a transitional period of 120 days or until
the Public Service Staff Relations Board makes a ruling on the
agency bargaining unit structure. After that time there will be
unified certification processes.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in my remarks earlier this morning I asked why the government
voted against all the opposition motions including some very
substantive ones which I thought were constructive.
I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary why last
night the government voted against a motion which would have
required that the legislation be enforced in a manner which
respects the principles of fairness, impartiality and
accountability.
Why did the government vote against fairness, impartiality and
accountability? Why did the government vote against a motion
which would have clarified that the minister was responsible for
all aspects of the agency? Will the government support our
proposed taxpayers bill of rights which would enumerate more
clearly in a single piece of legislation rights to due process
for taxpayers?
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to
answer all those questions, but I will say that fairness is
already included in the act and has been included for a number of
years.
As far as accountability, there were five major accountability
mechanisms already in the Revenue Canada Act and there are three
new ones. Eight accountability mechanisms will be included in
the agency.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43, an act to establish the
Canada customs and revenue agency.
As with any new government undertaking there is always the
question of what the costs will be. During the committee's
consideration of the bill the Minister of National Revenue tabled
a report with the committee on the amount of money spent by the
department to develop this agency concept. As I am sure members
of the committee have realized, these expenses have been very
reasonable, especially considering the significant proposed
changes to the agency.
Over the last two and half years Revenue Canada has had between
nine and fifteen persons working at any one time directly on this
agency proposal. This staff has been drawn from other areas
within the department. The total cost over that two and a half
years has been just over $3 million.
In addition, considerable work has been done on the design and
development of a new human resources regime. This work has
contributed to the broad objectives for public service renewal
such as la relève, as well as the human resources requirements
for the agency. Like all other departments, Revenue Canada has
been focusing a great deal of attention on its human resources
needs. The expenditures to date of about $2.8 million over three
years will be a very worthwhile investment in the future of
Revenue Canada employees.
I emphasize that the money spent today on design and development
is an investment that will reap tremendous benefits in the future
efficient and effective management of the Revenue Canada agency.
We are talking about some very important changes in management
style as well management processes and procedures which will
bring productivity gains that will pay for the development costs
many times over. The agency will benefit from a significant
reduction in time and effort spent on complex and cumbersome
administrative processes. Reducing hiring time and eliminating
the large number of vacant positions will substantially reduce
staffing costs.
Simplification of the classification system will also allow
employees to transfer more easily to jobs that need to be filled.
Simplified and more responsive recourse mechanisms will also
significantly reduce the waste of time and energy and the cost of
litigation.
1250
The result of all this will be to allow employees at all levels
to concentrate on their job of providing service to the Canadian
public rather than wasting their time on administrative
activities.
Savings from the productivity gains will be reinvested in the
tax and customs programs of the agency in order to improve levels
of service to the public while maintaining the integrity of our
overall income tax system.
There are savings to be made through modernizing many of the
administrative processes that Revenue Canada must now follow. To
do this effectively new authorities are required. The
fundamental changes that are foreseen simply cannot be
accomplished in the existing departmental structure. The changes
are too great and the existing structures are all too rigid.
There are some very important safeguards in the proposed new
structure, especially in so far as financial management is
concerned. I can assure that the parliamentary oversight of the
agency's financial management will be retained. The agency will
still be governed by the Financial Administration Act as well as
the policies and procedures of the Treasury Board and the
Receiver General for Canada with respect to matters of financial
management and the treatment of public moneys.
The budget of the Canada customs and revenue agency will still
have to be approved as part of the government's overall
expenditure management system. It will be subject to the normal
Treasury Board approval process and no money will be spent before
being approved by parliament. Parliament will also continue to
receive at least as much information for the agency as it does
now for Revenue Canada. The agency's financial statements will
be prepared in accordance with standard government accounting
practices.
I want to talk a little about the user fees issue for a moment.
Quite a myth has been built up over the potential use by the
agency of increased user fees. I want to lay this myth to rest.
Nothing in the bill would give the agency the authority to set
fees. The situation respecting user fees will be the same as it
is now with Revenue Canada. There are many controls in the
current system over the charging of fees to which the agency will
be subject. Let me outline these controls.
First, the minister will have to approve any new or increased
fees.
Second, the full regulatory process must be used for new or
increased fees, including the requirement to consult with those
affected and to receive governor in council approval.
Third, the agency's corporate business plan will have to outline
the strategy related to the spending of fees. This plan must be
approved by Treasury Board and the summary must be tabled in
parliament.
Fourth, parliament will have to approve the agency's
appropriations which include the proposals for the spending of
fees.
There is no danger that the agency will abuse user fees because
the government and parliament will have full control over how
fees are established.
Some significant savings will arise from the new agency as have
been outlined by a number of colleagues who have already spoken
on the bill. The public policy forum, an independent
organization with extensive experience in public sector
management, outlined in its study examining costs of compliance
with and administration of Canada's tax systems and the savings
from a single administration system, said there could be
significant savings to Canadian businesses, particularly small
businesses, from a single revenue administration.
Mr. Peter O'Brien, vice-president of Atlantic Canada for the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, confirmed this when
he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Finance on November 24, 1998. He said:
There's only one taxpayer in the end, and to have more than one
agency... I think is inefficient.... Time is very significant for
business, particularly smaller firms.
More precisely, the public policy forum study estimated that the
level of compliance savings to business each year would be
between $116 million and $193 million at a minimum. The study
also examined the administrative cost to government of tax
collection and the potential savings. It found that there was a
high potential for savings in the areas of personal income tax,
corporate income tax and payroll tax because of the similarities
at the federal and provincial levels as well as in a common
collection system. This reduction in overlap and duplication
will result in real savings to governments at all levels.
As the study outlined, in total it was estimated that
administrative costs to governments could be reduced by between
$37 million and $62 million annually at a minimum.
1255
Right now the provinces, the territories and the federal
government have tax measures and tax administrations that deal
with similar kinds of transactions with the same taxpayers. This
in essence is the reason why consolidation of these activities is
so important.
Provinces and territories will obviously invest their money
where they can achieve real savings from the central
administration of a program. A single administration would
result in real cost savings to the provinces. The point to be
made is that the potential savings to individual Canadians,
businesses and governments far outweigh the start-up and new
operating costs of the proposed agency.
We are entering the new world of the 21st century. There will
be a vast array of new technologies. Electronic commerce is
becoming one of the most important new mechanisms of the 21st
century, which has the potential for creating significant
improvements in productivity of Canadians in general. It also
has the potential for making it much easier to deal with the tax
man through such mechanisms as electronic filing.
Electronic commerce, which involves the transfers of billions of
dollars from one jurisdiction to another, also has frightening
potential to hide money. Transactions that take place in the
wink of an eye are very difficult to track. We need to be able
to respond to that. It concerns me that the federal and
provincial governments might take approaches to this issue which
are not well co-ordinated. One way to start co-ordinating this
activity would be to have tax administrations that are well
co-ordinated.
Modern problems require modern solutions. The time has come to
seize the opportunity presented to us with the new Canada customs
and revenue agency for the generation of benefits to the
provinces and the territories as well as to Canadian businesses
and our citizens.
In conclusion, as we enter the new millennium, Canada needs a
revitalized and more comprehensive Revenue Canada to serve the
best interest of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had to
laugh when I heard my colleague from Mississauga South mention
that this new agency would be able to solve the long standing
problems that have been plaguing Revenue Canada.
This is trying to fool people, especially when we see what the
agency will have to offer. There is an old saying that “Taxation
without representation is tyranny”. Others say that
representation, now that we have it, is worse than tyranny.
The government wants to set up an agency whose decision-making
powers are removed from the elected representatives.
It will have many powers including the authority to administer
and impose regulations that might take unfair advantage of
taxpayers even more than now. The current government seems to
turn a blind eye to the increasing poverty in this country. It
seems bent on reducing taxes for the rich.
I would like to put a question to my colleague regarding clause
8 of the bill. This clause seems to grant limitless powers to
the agency. I would like to ask the member for Mississauga South
for his views on this clause.
I will now read the most significant sentence of this clause:
The Minister may authorize the Commissioner... subject to any
terms and conditions that the minister specify, to exercise or
perform on the Minister's behalf any power, duty or function of
the Minister under any Act of Parliament or of a province.
Does this not mean that the agency has total freedom to do
whatever it wants at the expense of Canadian taxpayers and their
elected representatives?
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the governing of a country
is not a laughing matter. Had the member been listening to the
speech, he would understand that there is no change in terms of
the accountability and control of the minister or the
accountability or access of parliamentarians.
The member should stop with the rhetoric and start understanding
that as Canada enters into the new millennium the whole concept
of e-commerce, the whole concept of productivity and the whole
concept of working smart and not hard are very important to
embrace. Revenue Canada is in a situation right now where it
cannot move forward with the existing structures and existing
rigidity in its system. We have to move into the next
millennium. Whether the Bloc wants to come or not is its
decision.
1300
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is very interesting that the member for Mississauga South just
berated the other member for engaging in rhetoric. I do not
suppose all that millenarian stuff has anything rhetorical about
it.
The member said the changes which the government
seeks could not be achieved without becoming an agency. It is
rather circular thinking to stay it cannot become an agency
without becoming an agency. I do not deny that but I what I do
deny is that we could not make the personnel management policies
more flexible without becoming an agency. The Library of
Parliament says so, the public policy forum says so, the Canadian
Tax Foundation says so. The government has presented no evidence
to say it could not amend Treasury Board guidelines and the
public service governing legislation to allow them to employ
people on a more flexible basis as needed.
Does he not believe that with a board and a commissioner between
ourselves and the agency's day to day activities accountability
could and potentially will be diminished under the new agency?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
Revenue Canada could be restructured in any way the member wants.
As I said to the previous questioner, we have to work smart, not
hard. It is like changing the oil in your car without changing
the filter. It does not good because you continue to have some
of the same fundamental problems. It is time to get a renewed
Revenue Canada, a revitalized Revenue Canada, a Revenue Canada
built on a foundation for the new millennium, not for history.
The member asked about the board. There is no question that to
have a board to oversee the day to day operations is important.
Members of parliament and the minister will have absolutely no
diminished accessibility or accountability. It is all still
there. The member is worried about the spectres of somebody else
being between us and the people in the front lines. Frankly, I
am not afraid of our Canadian public service being able to do a
very good job on behalf of all Canadians regardless of who is
administering day to day.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
nice to have you in the chair again. It seems to becoming
habitual that you happen to be on shift just at the time I am
giving my speeches. It is nice to have you trapped there. Even
if the House is empty you are forced to listen to my speech, so I
thank you very much for that.
I will be splitting my time with the member for New
Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
The member who just spoke mentioned the new millennium. It made
me think of the fact that the new millennium actually starts at
the end of the year 2000, that is December 31, 2000, not at the
end of 1999 when the government will waste huge amounts of money,
hundreds of millions of dollars, on meaningless millennium
celebrations. It is typical of the government to be totally out
of touch with reality.
The Swiss apparently are not going to celebrate the change of
the millennium until the correct time which is the end of 2000,
typical Swiss punctuality. They make good watches so they know
how to measure time.
Somebody asked me what New Zealanders are doing and I am not
really sure. I could get myself into trouble with that.
One other thing I wanted to mention in relation to this before
getting into the meat of Bill C-43 is that the government has
moved time allocation on every stage of the bill. This is the
government that when it was in opposition screamed like crazy
every time the Mulroney government moved closure or time
allocation. When we look at its record in the 35th parliament it
moved time allocation 32 times and closure times. In this
parliament, just less than a year, it has moved time allocation
10 times.
The total since it took office in 1993-94 is time allocation 42
times and closure 3 times. I can see the government is shocked
at that.
1305
I know when it was in opposition it was shocked at Mulroney for
doing it at about half that rate. This government is actually
worse than the one that preceded it.
It seems any discussion about this bill, an act to establish the
Canada customs and revenue agency, must of necessity involve the
detailed consideration of the need for accountability and for
transparency of operations in such a new agency.
Plenty of Canadians consider the existing Revenue Canada to be
less than appropriately accountable. It is important that we
address their concerns when we are considering this whole
application of Bill C-43.
To illustrate the point, how many members have actually tried to
call Revenue Canada to ask about a tax problem, but not as
members of parliament? Members have have secret telephone
numbers that are not published and we can get through directly to
real people.
I hope they have tried to do that because it is an incredibly
frustrating and upsetting experience. Not only is it rare to
reach a real person by telephone but when someone does, it is
virtually impossible to get the name of the person.
If the person ever has to call back, my goodness, it is almost
guaranteed that they will get someone completely different and
they will have to explain the entire problem all over again.
If someone tries to make a personal visit to the place from
which emanate these notices of taxes due or the ones that contain
all sorts of errors that we are constantly trying to fix, they
would be in for a surprise.
Many of those offices do not actually seem to have real people
there. Some tax offices whose addresses are shown on the
envelopes that we receive in the mail from these places do not
even have a public reception area.
A visitor to the building gets the distinct impression the
employees sneak in the back door so that they can avoid
recognition. Even for MPs, though, with this special and
privileged access through these unpublished numbers, it is not
always easy to get answers or to get action.
There is a great and pressing need for a better level of service
along with the greater efficiency that would flow from allowing
taxpayers to at least speak to the same person each time they
call. This alone would surely invoke enormous efficiencies and I
hope the government would consider that.
Imagine not having to explain one's tax problem story all over
again to a different person every time they call Revenue Canada.
What a pleasure it would be to be given the name and direct
contact number for a Revenue Canada employee who looks after a
certain set of accounts. Problems surely could be dealt with
more efficiently if that sort of system were in place.
The well documented experience with the existing agency demands
of us that we build into Bill C-43 some accountability. Some
sort of taxpayer bill of rights is a great idea. I know my
colleagues have mentioned this in their speeches as well as
establishing an independent ombudsman type of office for taxpayer
protection.
Such an office would have the right to demand accountability and
would obviously have access to all the files in the new agency.
It would have to be directly accountable to parliament, something
that must happen with the new Revenue Canada agency anyway.
We cannot allow a government created agency that touches on
the lives of each and every taxpayer or potential taxpayer to
operate without direct accountability to parliament and to the
members of parliament. It is simply not good enough to establish
accountability to the minister. There must be a greater amount
of transparency and accountability than simply to the minister.
The present agency and the proposed new one would come in for
far less criticism and attack if this government would take steps
to reduce the taxes presently collected from citizens.
People are so financially stressed by the tax load imposed on
them that they are going into the underground economy. Some
small businesses are not able to pay their instalments and people
are getting into difficulties with Revenue Canada simply because
they are overtaxed.
They are taking on more and more of a personal debt load as a
result of that income shortfall and the ministers of taxation,
the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue,
live high on the hog as multimillionaires as we know.
What do they know of the pressures being felt by the small
business operators and the average wage earners across the
country? I would say little or nothing. As we know, they live
in a dream world of parliamentary receptions, state dinners,
holiday residences in the country and international travel.
1310
Perhaps like the Prime Minister they get their advice from
imaginary homeless people. There is no doubt, though, that they
are hopelessly out of touch with the real world of the average
wage earner.
It reminds me of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development who is out in B.C. at the moment travelling around
trying to promote the Nisga'a treaty even though 40% of the
Nisga'a themselves rejected it. Nobody has asked why 40%, almost
half, of the Nisga'a rejected this treaty. Maybe the government
and the minister should do that but they do not want to listen.
It is just like this bill. The government will not listen to
input that comes from the average person. Eighty per cent of
B.C. residents have expressed displeasure with the treaty and all
they hear from this government is that they have a racist
attitude when it is in fact genuine concern.
The minister lives in a dream world of political correctness.
She applauds Nelson Mandela but here she is trying to set up an
identical sort of apartheid like system in B.C. with these types
of treaties where we could have as many as 50 different
governments in B.C. each with its own set of laws and no
protection whatsoever for the rank and file members on the
reserves to have the money and benefits flow to them.
We have so many bands in B.C. that are not democratically
structured where there are high ranking chiefs in place who are
taking all the benefits and flowthrough that come from these
types of treaties.
I have a Squamish band in my riding. In the last week alone
five different band members have called, urging me to vote
against Bill C-49 they are afraid that all the benefits will flow
to the chiefs. On the Squamish band reserve in North Vancouver
there are 16 different chiefs. It is all hierarchal with no
democracy in place.
It is not just for this bill but for all the measures this
government is looking at, it really needs to get a little more
down to the grassroots and start listening to the average person
and the input that comes from them.
Unfortunately, because we are running out of time, I cannot go
through all this other wonderful stuff that I have down here
which I know would amuse some of the members opposite, but I will
try to get another chance to get up later in questions and
comments.
I finish by urging the government side to listen to the input
that has come from my colleagues on this side regarding a
taxpayer bill of rights. There is really a good logical reason
to have at least a set of principles by which the new agency
should act.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for the first three-quarters of his speech
in which he outlined the precise reasons why it is important for
this new revenue agency to be set up. He outlined very clearly
and very sincerely all the areas in which Canadians want and
deserve better service. I therefore thank the hon. member for
giving such wonderful support from the Reform Party for this new
revenue agency.
The member spent the last portion of his speech talking about a
different issue, the Nisga'a agreement. I overheard some
colleagues commenting that when the member had a problem with 60%
in favour and only 40% opposed, what about that 40%? He said it
was terrible but this is the party that argued that 50% plus 1
was okay to break up the country. What irony; 60% is not good
enough for a treaty but 50% plus 1 is good enough to break up a
country.
The member did touch on two items relevant to the bill or at
least what he thought was not in the bill. First was the issue
of an ombudsman. He answered his own question by suggesting that
members of parliament do have these special facilities to
communicate on behalf of their constituents with Revenue Canada.
Therefore Canadians do have an ombudsman. In fact, they have 301
ombudsmen.
Each and every one of us has that responsibility. I know we have
all served our constituents.
1315
The other item, and this is the point of the question I would
like to pose to the member, was with regard to the taxpayers bill
of rights. It is an interesting notion. Would the member
articulate two or three examples of what might be included in a
taxpayers bill of rights?
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment
on the opening remarks of the member opposite.
In terms of the things that I identified which should be in the
bill and the changes that should be made to Revenue Canada, yes
this is true, these are changes that everyone feels should be
made. We feel that this bill does not go far enough in
establishing the criteria that should be taken into account. We
want to see democratic consideration of what the people out there
in the world want in this new tax agency. In just a moment I
will come back to some specific points on that.
What I would like to mention first is in connection with the
percentages of people who vote for one thing or another. I made
no judgments whatsoever about whether the Nisga'a vote being 60%
to 40% was an appropriate percentage to create a country within a
country or to break up a country. I made no judgments about that
at all.
The point I made was that 40% of the Nisga'a people voted
against what the politically correct government over there thinks
is a wonderful treaty. My point was why not ask the 40% who are
not being asked why they did not like it. Maybe that 40% had
some critical reasons why they did not like it. I can tell the
member why they do not. It is because they are afraid that the
power and the benefits will flow to a few at the top. If the
member does not recognize that scenario from his own party, then
he needs more lessons on the topic.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether 50% plus 1% is
appropriate for Quebec separation, or whether 60% is appropriate
for the Nisga'a to separate. They certainly are separating if
that treaty goes ahead because there will be a new country within
a country. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Since the member opposite does not appear to have read the
document that the official opposition put out called “Protecting
the Rights of Canadians—The Office for Taxpayer Protection”, I
will give him a few points from it.
The office for taxpayer protection under the chief advocate
would be responsible for assisting taxpayers in resolving
disputes or problems where the mechanism within the agency itself
was not being helpful. They could propose changes to
administrative practices within the new agency in order to
minimize problems that are encountered by taxpayers. Sometimes
those close to the action do not always see the best way to
proceed.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are cutting me off again. This is really
bad news. There is such a lot to discuss here but I will take
your ruling and I will sit down.
The Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. member would
have preferred to have the full 20 minutes instead of sharing his
time but since he shared his time, I have to enforce the rules.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is Christmas time in Canada. It is
known as the time of giving, not taking.
We are here today talking about government behaviour and how it
takes its taxes. From my historical reference book which sits on
the clerk's table in front of me in the centre aisle of this
Commons chamber, I want to quote a relevant portion about taxes
at Christmas time. The book is the fundamental legal and
cultural base reference work for Canadian society, where we look
at the roots of our Canadian origin.
We can understand from the reference I will quote that it has
long been viewed as legitimate that governments can tax, can
count its subjects and render economic recompense to the central
authority. Specifically the Bible says in Luke, chapter two:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And
this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,
into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem,
(because he was of the house and lineage of David) to be taxed
with Mary his espoused wife—
1320
We learn from this venerable reference that indeed taxes, levies
or a portion of production including the census of all, has
traditionally been taken from individuals to serve the purposes
of those in power. Therefore in history governments tax and
people pay. It has always been that way.
However the fundamental political question for our society now
is how the government takes or collects its taxes and how, with
its degree of wisdom, does it use the revenue taken. For some
years now Canadian governments have taxed too much, spent too
much and thus we owe too much. And now at Christmas time we are
presented in this parliament with a whole new regime of federal
taxation.
The bill changes the legal basis of how taxes are collected. We
are creating a new agency that is something akin to a crown
corporation, as we have known them in Canada, as the final
controller of economic life.
Specifically the government has proposed Bill C-43 which
establishes the Canada customs and revenue agency to carry out
the mandate of the Department of National Revenue and repeals the
Department of National Revenue Act. The Minister of National
Revenue is named as the minister responsible for the agency.
The minister continues to be accountable for the administration
and enforcement of federal tax, trade and customs legislation.
The agency supports the minister in the administration and
enforcement of such legislation and the minister directs the
commissioner of customs and revenue and the agency employees in
that regard. The enactment also authorizes the agency to contract
with the provinces to administer provincial tax and other
programs.
This enactment sets out the responsibilities, accountability
regime, organization, human and financial resources regime and
planning and reporting framework of the agency. It establishes a
board of management to oversee the management of the agency and
gives the commissioner of customs and revenue responsibility for
day to day management of the agency as its chief executive
officer. The minister may issue written directions to the agency
in matters within the authority and responsibility of the board
that affect public policy or could materially affect public
finances.
The agency continues to be subject to Treasury Board's
requirements with respect to financial management but has its own
authorities for matters such as human resources, contracting and
property management. The agency must annually submit a corporate
business plan to the minister for recommendation to the Treasury
Board and the minister must table a summary of the plan in
parliament. The plan must include the strategies the agency
intends to use to meet its human resources and other
administrative objectives as well as the proposed operating and
capital budgets.
This bill may be the sleeper hold on Canadians which will catch
us unaware. The bill is a dramatic historical change. It is
powerful and pervasive.
Consequently the official opposition has put forward a
comprehensive proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. It would
enumerate for the first time in federal law a number of rights to
due process for taxpayers in the collection system. There are
rights existing now with manuals of operation, interpretation
bulletins and various rulings, but a single charter list of
performance standards and actionable rules that are listed up
front for taxpayers to hang on to just is not there. It has never
been administratively convenient for bureaucracies to be user
friendly or too willing to provide its servant clients with too
much bargaining power against the official edicts of the
department.
Essentially our draft taxpayer bill of rights would have
legislative force. It would essentially ensure in legislation
that taxpayers would be presumed innocent until proven guilty in
the tax process. It would reverse the onus which is now on
taxpayers who too often are determined to be guilty and
financially penalized before even being ruled innocent.
Furthermore it would give taxpayers various avenues of appeal.
Currently if taxpayers of ordinary means find, as they do in
many cases, that they have been unduly targeted by a heartless
collection agent at Revenue Canada, they have only one real
avenue of recourse and that is through the tax court. The vast
majority of people of modest means do not have the resources to
use the appeal process through the courts. They cannot hire tax
lawyers and spend months and years and tens of thousands of
dollars defending their basic rights.
We propose as part of our taxpayer bill of rights the adoption
of an office for taxpayer protection which would essentially be
an ombudsman to adjudicate legitimate disputes between taxpayers
and the revenue agency. It would essentially provide an avenue
of appeal and mediation which would be far less costly and far
more accessible to taxpayers than what currently exists. These
two measures, a taxpayer bill of rights and the adoption of an
office of taxpayer protection, would go a very long way toward
protecting Canadian taxpayers in the new era of the Canada
customs and revenue agency.
1325
We can see no good reason, nor has the government offered a
single good reason, why a taxpayer bill of rights ought not to be
introduced and passed as part of the bill before us today. I call
on the government to consider our sincere, detailed and
thoughtful proposal for a taxpayer bill of rights. If the
minister were to give us an inclination that he was willing to
seriously consider this kind of recommendation that we have made,
we in turn as the official opposition certainly would seriously
consider fully supporting the bill because of some of the
administrative innovations that may be achieved by it.
It is clear that many Canadians are not satisfied with the level
of fairness and due process in the tax collection system. There
is a need to entrench and protect the taxpayers rights as the
agency becomes more distant from government. In a previous speech
I outlined some of the suggested specific terms of a list of
written rights which parallel some of the rules of fundamental
justice concerning due process. There are some rights now but
taxpayers do not know them and there is no tax charter.
In conclusion, it must be a fundamental principle and it would
be of a Reform government, that the rights of taxpayers must
supersede the efficiency enhancements or the interests of the
agency. We must guard against agency interests overwhelming
taxpayer interests. Let us never forget about who works for
whom. Certainly we have evolved somewhat since Caesar taxed the
world.
As Reformers proceed to get support for a more simplified and
flatter tax system, we are going to try to be vigilant to monitor
that any benefits derived from the new CCRA are not lost due to
the greater damage wrought upon taxpayers through poor
implementation and assaults upon taxpayers' basic dignity of the
person. An office of taxpayer protection in place to enforce the
taxpayer bill of rights represents a very low cost, partially
self-financing, effective tool for protecting citizens and
ensuring that the human cost of change and implementation are
carefully considered. For, in spite of the technical nature of
revenue collection, it is still all about people and how we as a
society organize ourselves to be governed with fairness, equality
and above all, compassion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member really wanted to talk about the taxpayer bill of
rights. Bill C-43 is a bill to establish an agency, virtually to
create a new foundation for an existing government department.
The member is a lawyer. Does he believe that a taxpayer bill of
rights would be better positioned within Bill C-43 or would it
make more sense to incorporate it into the Income Tax Act itself
as a provision or regulation of the act where it legitimately
belongs?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could take the
example of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code spells out the
offences which would be the equivalent of the tax act itself, the
technical parts. Yet when we deal with young offenders, we want
to give special consideration on how we deal with children. The
Young Offenders Act deals with process.
This bill is a covering bill which sets up how the collection of
taxes is going to be done in this structure. This is the more
appropriate place to have a charter of basic rights that would be
actionable, that talks about how in spirit as well as with the
office of the ombudsman and so on that tax would be collected. I
think it is the most appropriate place to put it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on what the hon. member for Mississauga
South said to one of my colleagues, because I was insulted.
If I understand correctly, he said that making changes to the
revenue department for the next millennium would be like
changing the oil without changing the oil filter. This is an
insult to the employees of the revenue department.
The hon. member for Mississauga South should have compared the
establishment of this agency to the construction of a new
vehicle, as the revenue minister did.
1330
I answered that the new vehicle put together by the department
does not look too good. The best clients, the provinces, were
not even consulted, so we could find out whether or not this
vehicle would sell. In my opinion, it will not sell.
I would like the Reform member to tell me why the provinces will
not buy Bill C-43.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I believe the provinces
will adopt a wait and see approach. If the government in its
carrying forward of the bill is sensitive and works in a
co-operative partnership manner perhaps it will build support.
That is the same approach we are asking for in the taxpayers bill
of rights to deal with the taxpayers who basically pay the bill,
the very reason the agency exists.
Why can it not be said clearly upfront that taxpayers have a
right to be treated in a professional manner? The professional
manner has been well defined in the schools of public
administration. Taxpayers have the right to understand laws with
which they are required to comply. There are international
discussions between parliamentarians about what plain language
means. There has been a lot of debate about plain language. One
can get a master's degree on that point.
Taxpayers have the right to pay the amount of tax required to by
law and no more. Revenue officials should inform taxpayers of
overpayment. Taxpayers have the right to record any and all
meetings with Revenue Canada-CCR officials without being required
to give notice to do so. If the government does the right thing
it will develop co-operation.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I have heard debate
from both sides of the House today. On one side I heard about
coming onstream, being smart and getting into the new century.
Why are the provincial governments not jumping on board the new
taxation vehicle that is being created in the bill that has come
before us through closure?
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, the record is that they
have not been doing so. None of the provinces have jumped on
board. We will see if the agency actually delivers what it is
said to deliver. This is something the auditor general talked
about in the past.
We have legislation and a lot of fancy advertising that proposes
certain things, but when they are examined for their dollar value
they do not deliver what was proposed. We will see whether or
not the agency is innovative. The true test is in the pudding.
The provinces may sign on if the government makes delivery in a
proper manner.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
[Translation]
The establishment of the new Canada customs and revenue agency
is a major undertaking. Questions have been raised during
consultations with the provinces, territories, clients and the
public. The question of accountability is one that came up
frequently during these consultations. It is an important issue
and I will address it in my speech.
Basically, everyone wants the proposed new agency to be
responsible for its actions and for the manner in which it
operates. I wish to assure members that ministerial
accountability for program legislation will be maintained, as
will overall control of the agency by the government.
As is now the case, members will be able to ask the Minister of
National Revenue to look into the handling of a file.
[English]
Bill C-43 establishes a number of accountability mechanisms that
will ensure the agency, despite its new structure and potential
increased services on behalf of the provinces and territories,
will remain accountable to parliament, to its clients and to the
public for its actions.
1335
For instance, the minister will remain accountable as provided
in clause 6 of the bill. The auditor general continues as the
agency's auditor as stipulated in clause 87 of the bill. There is
a five year legislative review as specified in clause 89 of the
bill.
A corporate business plan is to be submitted to the minister for
recommendation to Treasury Board for approval. The minister then
tables the summary of the approved plan in parliament as provided
for in clause 49 of the bill. An annual report on operations
will be tabled by the minister in parliament as stipulated in
clause 88 of the bill.
The Public Service Commission can periodically review the
compatibility of the principles governing the agency staffing
program and those governing staffing under the Public Service
Employment Act. It may report its findings in its annual report
as outlined in subclause 56(2). There is a mandatory review of
recourse mechanisms by a third party after three years as
provided for in clause 59 of the bill, and a summary of the
results will be included in the agency's annual report to
parliament.
[Translation]
The Minister of National Revenue will remain responsible for the
administration and enforcement of program legislation such as
the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, and the Customs Act. He
will also be able to direct officials in the exercise of
authorities under this legislation.
The minister is currently named 1,470 times in various pieces of
program legislation as the person with the authority to exercise
specific actions, such as assessing tax returns.
The minister will continue to be the person named to exercise
those authorities. This means that the minister will retain
personal accountability for the way tax and customs programs are
run. This direct accountability ensures that the minister has
the authority to inquire into any matter of program
administration. This is important, because the minister can
ensure that clients of the agency have been treated fairly and
equitably.
The minister will continue to respond to questions in the House
and from the public on program and policy matters. He will
continue to be able to respond to members of parliament when
their constituents seek their help in dealing with tax or
customs matters. However, while the minister is accountable for
how the programs are carried out, the agency has a considerable
amount of autonomy in matters of internal management.
[English]
The agency will be directed by a board of management which will
be accountable to parliament through the minister responsible for
management policies of the agency such as human resource
activities like staffing and compensation, mandates for
negotiating with its bargaining agents in collective bargaining
agreements, services and performance standards, and the
appropriate allocation of internal resources.
Some people have expressed concern that the board of management
consisting of private sector individuals might ignore the public
interest and act in a way that is motivated only by revenue
generation. There are sufficient checks and balances in the bill
to ensure that the agency will remain within the overall
government policy framework.
I quote Mr. Robert Spindler of the Canadian Institute of
Chartered Accountants when he appeared before the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Finance on November 24:
We recommended that the existing ministerial oversight of the
revenue system exercised by the minister of revenue be
maintained.... It is clear that the comments provided on this
issue during the consultations were heard and taken into account.
We're pleased that under Bill C-43, the minister of revenue will
retain responsibility for the agency and it will be structured to
allow for close ministerial oversight and, in particular, that
the minister's power of inquiry into any activity of the agency
will be maintained.
[Translation]
In addition, the commissioner, who is a member of the board of
management, would act as a full time chief executive officer of
the agency and be responsible for the day to day operations of
the organization.
1340
He will be accountable to the minister for the administration
and enforcement of program legislation. He will also be
accountable to the board of management for the day to day
management of the agency.
With regards to accountability for the administration of
provincial programs, the commissioner will offer to meet with
provincial and territorial finance ministers and to report on
such matters as service and revenue levels and to receive
feedback from them.
The important and necessary relationship now in place between
the Departments of Finance and National Revenue will continue
between the Department of Finance and the agency.
In summary, ministerial accountability, overall control by
government, and parliamentary oversight will be maintained for
the new agency.
And those being served by the agency, especially the provinces
and territories, will have new means at their disposal to ensure
that the agency is accountable to them for its performance.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
great interest to the speech made by my colleague opposite.
The concern for the opposition, and the member will certainly
understand that, is that all these agencies that have multiplied
under the Liberals, whether it be Nav Canada, Canada Post
Corporation or Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation, are all
independently managed. There are accountable to the House only
once a year when they table their financial statement, and if it
is even ever so slightly positive, there are no questions asked.
If there were no losses, there were no problems.
However, if the taxpayers want a precise answer to a particular
question, the minister washes his hands of everything and says
he cannot do anything because it is an agency. That is what all
the opposition parties are speaking out against in the House,
namely the fact that the government is making sure that it does
not have to answer our questions from now on.
I want to ask the member if he does not see the risk that this
kind of agency could become a patronage haven, as was
unfortunately the case with Canada Post Corporation, for
example. Are these agencies required to go to the lowest bidder
when awarding a contract or do they just go down the list of
Liberal Party contributors?
Does the member not see the danger in taking assets out of the
hands of regular public servants to have them managed by friends
of the government? We want to hear what he has to say on that
particular point and nothing else.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member listened
more carefully to what I said, he would have realized that this
agency is different from the other agencies he just mentioned.
The minister remains responsible for the agency.
We parliamentarians will continue to have the opportunity to ask
the minister to intervene, if our constituents, our voters, have
a problem with the agency. This is not how it goes with other
agencies.
This is why I believe this agency will be more accountable.
Every year, the minister must submit a corporate business plan
to the President of the Treasury Board, who in turn will table
it in the House. The auditor general will be auditing the
agency's books. This agency is different from the others in many
regards, in my opinion.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to know what our hon. colleague thinks about the trend this
bill seems to be setting, in terms of Canada's evolution. This
is a concern to me, as a Quebeckers and a sovereignist.
1345
Can he tell me, since this agency will have the power to collect
taxes on behalf of the federal government—taking the place of
Revenue Canada, which, in itself, is a major step, given the
drawbacks my colleague from Chambly just mentioned with respect
to parliament's role—and on behalf of the provinces,
municipalities, school boards and those private businesses that
wish to avail themselves of this service, where this is leading
Canada as a political entity.
Does it not look like provincial governments will soon be
nothing more than regional government? Are we not moving toward
a centralized, unitary Canada, where Quebec will not truly feel
at home?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, the first thing we must take
into consideration is the fact that the agreements the agency
may sign with the provinces or any other government are
voluntary agreements. The provinces that do not want to
participate do not have to.
Second, I am surprised that members of the Bloc Quebecois, who
always say they want to avoid duplication and overlap, do not
see this as a perfect opportunity to try to avoid duplication
and overlap.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I begin by noting that accountability and fairness are the
cornerstones of our government's legislation, policies,
regulations and processes. Certainly residents in
Waterloo—Wellington, indeed Canadians everywhere, understand and
know this to be true.
Fairness is an essential foundation to the entire revenue
administration. It is a system based on voluntary compliance and
if the clients do not believe they are being treated fairly, one
cannot expect them to comply voluntarily.
Revenue Canada is already a world leader in treating citizens in
a fair and equitable manner in the delivery of customs and
revenue programs.
Despite this excellent record, the Minister of National Revenue
launched the fairness initiative in March of this year to solicit
feedback on the fairness of the department's programs. More
specifically, it looked at the measures that were in place,
evaluated how well the department was doing at providing fairness
and identified improvements that will be made to provide a
greater level of fairness to Revenue Canada's clients.
The consultations were broad and comprehensive. Canadians from
all walks of life were asked for their views on the department's
record at being fair as well as to identify opportunities which
would make the system even fairer. Consultations included
speaking to and listening to the general public, the department's
independent advisory committees, stakeholder groups and Revenue
Canada's managers and frontline staff.
To ensure the entire process would be objective, Revenue Canada
partnered with the Conference Board of Canada to analyse results,
hold a national symposium to verify priorities and to produce an
independent report.
As well, a comparative assessment was undertaken of the best
practices of other customs and revenue administrations around the
world. As a conference board report states, Revenue Canada is
well regarded among Canadians and among international customs and
revenue agencies as a leader, an innovator and an effective
organization, truly a strong voice of confidence to it.
Many suggestions have been received to make further improvements
to the fairness of Revenue Canada, and its officials are in the
process of developing an action plan for the minister's
consideration. This action plan, along with the conference board
report, will be released by the minister in early 1999.
One message was crystal clear in all this. Revenue Canada needs
to continue strengthening the organization to make fairness an
ongoing part of every employee's job. Taking the responsibility
for fairness out of Revenue Canada and giving it to the
taxpayers' advocate and ombudsman or an office of taxpayer
protection is not what Canadians are calling for. The conference
board reports that Revenue Canada has already made significant
strides in this direction and is well equipped to provide
fairness to Canadians. Revenue Canada is constantly striving to
improve its services to all Canadians.
We are living in a constantly evolving world and Canada's
business, economic and social environment is dramatically
changing. It is one of the reasons that the agency is being
created, to respond to those changes and to provide better service
to all our clients. Good service is fair service always.
1350
Fairness means being open, clear, courteous, responsive, timely
and accessible. Applying legislation fairly for Revenue Canada
and for the new agency then means applying it impartially,
consistently and responsively. It means as well that commitments
Revenue Canada makes to fairness will be commitments for the
Canada customs and revenue agency. That agency is all about
providing better and more effective and efficient service to
Canadians. Fairness is part and parcel of service and an
efficient organization that is not fair to its clients is not an
effective one.
Feedback as well from the fairness initiative reinforced the
longstanding practice of building commitment to fairness
throughout the organization as opposed to isolating it in a
separate office.
Creating and office of taxpayer protection as some have
suggested would also carry additional expense and would detract
from the ability of members of parliament to deal directly with
the Minister of National Revenue to resolve their constituents'
problems.
Members of parliament should have the right to call the minister
to task if the agency appears to behave unfairly in its ways and
to its clients. The agency's clients should also have the right
to have a member of parliament raise concerns directly to the
minister in the House of Commons on the actions of the agency.
That is very important.
Some hon. members have also suggested entrenching a taxpayer
bill of rights in the legislation. Their rationale is that the
agency may become out of control, leading to taxpayer complaints
on the scale of those facing the United States Internal Revenue
Service in recent years.
I remind them that Revenue Canada's declaration of taxpayer
rights was the first of its kind in the world, introduced in
1985. The declaration has been periodically updated to remain
current with the law and societal needs and is entrenched in the
day to day operations of the department and is part of the public
service ethos that will carry over to the agency.
In addition, feedback to date from the consultations on the
fairness initiative indicates that Canadians are pleased with the
current declaration of taxpayer rights.
The Canada customs and revenue agency will not be an arm's
length agency like the IRS and therefore what it might need is
not what we need.
Garth Whyte, vice-president of national affairs for the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, pointed out when he appeared
before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on
November 24: “The problem is once you put it in the act it is
pretty hard to enforce. We want to see this as a cultural change
happening in the department and a dedication to service. You can
write it in the act, and we have seen many things written in the
act but then people think it's done. I think it should be done at
the department level”. That is well worth remembering.
In addition to not being necessary, adding a taxpayer bill of
rights to the agency legislation would have the effect of
amending program legislation such as the Income Tax Act.
Provisions such as those proposed should therefore be directed
specifically at that act and other similar statutes the agency
would administer.
Unlike the situation with the IRS, there will continue to be a
minister of national revenue who will continue to be accountable
to the public and in the House of Commons for all aspects of the
agency's performance, including its fairness.
Canadians certainly expect no less and Canadians deserve no
less. I therefore urge all members to support this very
worthwhile legislation.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to see a government member has finally directly
addressed the official opposition's proposal for a taxpayer bill
of rights.
The hon. member mentioned the current declaration of taxpayer
rights introduced in 1985 by then Minister Beatty. Would he not
agree with me that this declaration has not statutory force, no
sanctions and is merely a declaration of intent? Would he not
also agree the entrenchment of such rights to due process would
be preferable?
1355
He points out that it is not efficient to incorporate this into
the actual revenue agency legislation. Would he not agree that
it would be worth considering adopting a separate piece of
legislation to incorporate the kinds of rights that now merely
exist on paper in the form of a declaration?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
very good question. The declaration of taxpayer rights really is
an evolving piece of legislation that will be part and parcel of
this new agency.
It will underscore the kind of commitment that certainly we as a
government want to see carried forward in the best interests of
all Canadians as it relates to this agency in a manner that is
meaningful and consistent with the kinds of information that
certainly we on the government side have been given with respect
to the importance of carrying forward in this manner.
In answer to the hon. member, the declaration is a very valuable
piece of legislation that is in keeping with the kinds of values
that we as Canadians want to promote.
The Speaker: There are still about three minutes left for
questions and responses. I wonder if we could proceed to
Statements by Members and pick up here after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RICK CHAPLIN
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Cambridge's native Rick Chaplin was recently awarded the United
Kingdom's prestigious Association of MBA's Independent MBA Student of
the Year Award.
A professional management recruiter with Canadian General Tower
of Cambridge for 13 years, Rick returned to school at age 38 and
attended the MBA program at the University of Bath, England.
One of only five award winners in all of the United Kingdom,
Rick was recognized for his contributions to the staff-student
liaison committee and his exceptional mentoring skills.
Cambridge has long been proud of Rick's ongoing contribution to
making our community a better place and we are all proud of his
achievements.
I know the people of Cambridge and members will join me in
offering Rick our congratulations.
* * *
SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
words cannot describe the shock and sadness Canadians felt when a
small commercial aircraft crashed into the St. Lawrence River
yesterday, taking the lives of seven of the ten people on board.
It tears at our hearts and leaves us with a deep feeling of
emptiness and hurt. As we remember and grieve for the loss of
life we must also give praise and tribute to those who helped
preserve it.
The incredible rescue of the three survivors began when a six
year old girl witnessed the crash and, upon notifying her mother,
set in motion a series of events that led to a privately owned
helicopter racing toward the downed plane.
Facing snow squalls and poor visibility and risking their very
lives, the crew of the small chopper arrived at the crash sight
in 17 minutes. They flew low enough to the turbulent waters to
snatch the three survivors from the icy grip of the St. Lawrence
just before the tide rolled in and hope was slipping away.
To the Quebec provincial police, Canadian armed forces and the
coast guard, but above all to those who notified authorities and
flew the small privately owned helicopter, we salute your
courage. We salute your valour. Above all, we salute your
selfless deed and for risking your lives to save the lives of
others.
* * *
HURON—BRUCE
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
despite my best efforts to uphold my humble demeanour, I am again
forced to my feet to regale this House with yet another example
of why Huron—Bruce is one of the finest constituencies in all of
Canada.
Each October the town of Port Elgin in the northern part of my
riding hosts its annual Pumpkinfest. This festival, commonly
known as the olympics of gardening, provides an opportunity for
the pumpkin growers of Ontario and the northern U.S. to collect
together to determine who among them is a premium melon
cultivator.
This year, as described by talk show host Jay Leno, the Port
Elgin Pumpkinfest stepped into the record books. I am pleased to
report that the 2000 edition of the Guiness Book of World Records
will formally recognize the 1,092 pound gourd grown at this 1998
event.
As I witnessed at the weigh-in, the competition was intense.
Again Port Elgin has secured its place as a world leader in the
field of growing giant vegetables. Perhaps next year my
colleagues in this place might add the Pumpkinfest to their
summer agenda.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
members, urban and rural, know there is an income crisis in some
sectors of agriculture for reasons that are beyond the control of
our farmers.
1400
I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to provide
assistance directly to the farmers, especially the smaller scale
farmers. I urge him to provide this assistance soon and in a
creative way that lays the foundation for income safety nets of
the future.
I realize that this is a federal and provincial matter and I
urge the provinces to co-operate with our minister in his efforts
to solve this problem, but the federal government should show
leadership in this serious national matter.
Let us act now.
* * *
[Translation]
PLANE CRASH AT POINTE-LEBEL
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
morning, a little after 11, there was a terrible plane crash at
Pointe-Lebel, near Baie-Comeau. Seven people lost their lives and
another three were injured. All were from the North Shore.
I congratulate the rescue teams that were able to save the
three. However, this is a most regrettable accident, which has
plunged many family members and friends into mourning.
To the survivors we wish a speedy recovery and a prompt return
to their families.
We pray for the victims, the injured and their families.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
week a delegation of postal franchisees is in Ottawa to fight for
survival.
The minister guaranteed us that there would be no losses due to
Canada Post's reduction in stamp commissions. The fact is that
one week after implementation 30 postal outlets have notified
Canada Post of their closure. It is only the beginning. The
franchises predict that 100% of urban postal outlets will be
closed by August 1999.
Yesterday the minister turned down a request to meet with the
franchisees directly. Is it because he knows they are right? Is
it because it is difficult to look into the faces of those who
are losing their livelihood?
The minister may be able to hide in his office now, but in the
new year he will have to justify to hundreds of franchisees and
millions of Canadians why he allowed Canada Post to
systematically destroy the postal network across this country.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNOR GENERAL
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, December 5, my beautiful riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri
was honoured with a visit by Governor General Roméo Leblanc and
his wife.
I had the pleasure of spending a magical day with 200 children
from my riding, a day which featured balloons, candies, an
excellent lunch, a troupe of magicians, and Santa.
On behalf of the 200 Verdun children who will have life-long
memories of this excellent initiative of bringing the party to
their community, I wish to thank the Governor General and his
wife.
I hope very much that this custom will continue for many years
to come.
My thanks to the organizers, the group Toujours Ensemble, and
all the volunteers.
* * *
VICTIMS OF GULF WAR SYNDROME
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Maurice
Bédard, a member of the military in my riding, who retired after
26 years in the Canadian forces, continues to believe, like
several of his former colleagues, that the federal government is
not taking adequate action to shed light on the health problems
of those who claim to be victims of gulf war syndrome.
Since several members of the armed forces remain skeptical about
the impartiality of the Canadian forces in revealing the
circumstances that triggered this syndrome, would it not be
appropriate to have a commission of inquiry, independent from
the Department of National Defence, look into this issue?
As a member of the UN security council, Canada has a moral
obligation not to leave any doubt regarding the equality of
treatment provided to its own military personnel.
This is what Mr. Bédard wants to reaffirm by asking me to return
to the Government of Canada, through this House, the medals he
was awarded during the gulf war. From now on, these medals will
be associated with shame, not pride, in the minds of many.
* * *
[English]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1989, December 6 has been a date to remember Canadian women
whose lives are affected by violence and, in particular, the 14
young women who tragically lost their lives in Montreal at École
Polytechnique.
December 6 has come and gone, but we must continue to fight
violence against women and remember those who are affected every
day, not just one day a year.
I am proud to be part of a government that has made significant
changes in the justice system to reflect the impact of these
crimes, not only on the victims, but on society as a whole. We
have legislated gun control. We have eliminated self-induced
intoxication as a defence for violent crimes like sexual assault
and just last June our government announced a $32 million a year
national crime prevention initiative aimed at developing
community based responses to crime, with the emphasis on women,
children and youth.
1405
Our government is committed to ending violence against all
people in Canada. We hope these measures will help make our
society safer.
* * *
ELWIN HERMANSON
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today to recognize in the
gallery my good friend and political mentor Mr. Elwin Hermanson.
As many will recall, Elwin was the member for
Kindersley—Lloydminster in the House of Commons from 1993 to
1997, serving as both the House leader for the Reform Party as
well as its chief agricultural critic.
Elwin has since won the leadership of the official opposition in
Regina, the Saskatchewan Party. This new party is made up of
members from all parties who believe in fiscal responsibility and
democratic accountability.
These political pioneers have the desire and the political will
to see Saskatchewan fulfill its potential and take its rightful
place in Confederation as a have province and no longer a poor
country cousin.
On behalf of my colleagues in Ottawa, I sincerely wish all the
best to Elwin and his team. I wish them future success in their
political endeavours.
* * *
THE RED VIOLIN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to welcome the film The Red Violin
to Canada's capital. This Canadian feature film was nominated
for 10 Genie awards. I am delighted to salute its director,
François Girard, and his creative team in the House of Commons
today.
This hauntingly beautiful work is based on an original
screenplay by Don McKellar and François Girard. Filmed on
location in Italy, Austria, England, China and Canada, it boasts
a stellar international cast.
[Translation]
The Red Violin, with the haunting music of John Corigliano
played by Joshua Bell, the internationally renowned violinist,
will be shown this evening as a special presentation, at the
Canadian Museum of Civilization.
I am sure that members of the House will join me in
congratulating François Girard, Don McKellar and producers Niv
Fichman and Daniel Iron of Rhombus Media, for their film's
success.
* * *
[English]
CANADA-CHINA LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the newly formed Canada-China Legislative Association recently
made its inaugural visit to China and held meetings with the
National People's Congress. It is called a legislative
association and not a parliamentary association because China has
neither a true parliament nor a parliamentary political culture.
A parliamentary culture not only tolerates but welcomes and even
formalizes dissent and opposition. The crackdown of the last two
weeks on political dissenters in China shows the wisdom of
withholding the name parliamentary from the association we in
this parliament have with the National People's Congress.
China is a major player on the global stage and must be engaged
by Canada both politically and economically. However, at the
same time as we show respect for China we must also show respect
for our own values.
China is now a place where people can make money. But a more
open economy without democratic values is surely not enough. The
west must not be bought by the lure of such a big market. When
parliamentary values can be openly practised in China, China's
signature of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights will take on new meaning and China will truly take its
place as a leader among nations.
* * *
[Translation]
TRIBUTE TO MAURICE CHAMPAGNE
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am using the
occasion of the 35th anniversary of the Quebec Ligue des droits
et libertés to pay tribute to Maurice Champagne, who was its
chair and executive director from 1971 to 1975.
A poet and essayist, Mr. Champagne recently passed away.
He oversaw projects that led to the Government of Quebec's
passing of the charter of rights and freedoms and the Youth
Protection Act and to the establishment of a family policy.
Maurice Champagne's accomplishments will survive him. A few
days ago, the Ligue des droits et libertés held a conference on
the situation and the future of rights and freedoms in Quebec
and in the world.
It invites us to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which has always guided its
actions.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in Edmonton the Prime Minister announced the renewal of
Canada's youth employment strategy. Now a permanent program,
$155 million a year will be provided to help young Canadians.
That is $465 million over the next three years.
Already we have helped over 300,000 young people to find work or
become better trained. For example, after one year 88% of
participants in the Youth Internship Canada Program had a job,
had started their own business or had returned to school.
This is a program that works. We work with youth, educators,
parents, the private sector and other governments to determine
what young people need to enter today's job market. Why? Because
it matters to us that young people have jobs and a future to look
forward to in Canada.
* * *
1410
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
after 18 months of constant questioning, it appears we have
struck a nerve with the New Brunswick highway toll deal.
Immediately after producing a letter last week confirming that
Doug Young has contravened his own ministerial directives in
order to take advantage of a multimillion dollar toll deal on a
New Brunswick highway, the member for Kenora—Rainy River began
an organized campaign designed to stop four MPs from asking
questions about Doug Young's complicity in this highway deal.
The House of Commons deserves to know who is the driving force
behind this campaign. Who initiated the campaign? Has the
member for Kenora—Rainy River received instructions from his
former boss—
The Speaker: This was settled yesterday on a question of
privilege. The hon. member for Thornhill.
* * *
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICE ORGANIZATION
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to acknowledge the contribution of three constituents from the
riding of Thornhill, volunteers of the Canadian Executive Service
Organization.
John Martin spent four weeks in Kyrgyzstan at the request of the
state procurement agency. This agency had no practical
experience in purchasing or simple procedures from which to
operate.
John worked closely with the state agency, developing a training
program for agency members and a centralized purchasing unit to
reduce costs by bulk purchasing.
John and Gertrud Schmied spent five weeks in Russia working with
a company that processes soybeans in Krasnodar.
Working with this company to develop a chain of fast food stores
and cafes, John designed an organizational chart, job description
formats, a performance evaluation form and a sales productivity
measurement plan.
Last year the volunteers of the Canadian Executive Service
Organization provided almost 23,000 days of assistance to
developing nations, emerging market economies and Canadian
aboriginal communities.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian jobs in rural communities are on the line. The current
collapse of net farm incomes is jeopardizing Canada's forage
dehydration industry, a little known but vital part of our
agricultural communities, particularly in my riding of Prince
Albert where the bulk of Saskatchewan's alfalfa dehydration
production is processed.
Just consider these facts. First, Canada is the lowest cost
producer in the world. Second, without unfair Economic Union
subsidies, the Canadian dehydration industry would have weathered
the economic downturn in Asia. Third, the dehydration industry
is already burdened with rail transportation costs which have
doubled while service declines. Finally, processing plants are
largely farmer owned.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to keep this
industry and these facts in mind before setting emergency
compensation which may further penalize these farm-dependent
producers.
The government has already caused enough damage by raising
freight rates and dropping subsidies more rapidly than our
European competitors.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, December
10 will mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is with pride that I rise today to honour a great Canadian
and former resident of my riding of Fundy—Royal, John Peters
Humphrey.
The principal author of the declaration was raised in Hampton,
New Brunswick and graduated from RCS Netherwood High School.
Mr. Humphrey was also the first director of the Human Rights
Secretariat at the United Nations. He was part of the team that
launched Amnesty International Canada and was instrumental in
creating the Canadian Human Rights Foundation.
In 1988, on the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, he was awarded the United Nations Human Rights
Prize, the first Canadian to receive such an honour. In 1974 he
was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.
I would also like to pay tribute to another New Brunswick son,
Gordon Fairweather, Canada's first Human Rights Commissioner and
a former member of the House of Commons as MP for Fundy—Royal.
I am very proud of these two New Brunswickers for their
contribution to the advancement of human rights, both here in
Canada and on the world stage.
* * *
SKILLED EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is
facing a critical shortage of skilled tradespeople.
In the riding of Halton, high tech companies tell me they have
had to postpone growth and job creation because they simply
cannot find enough skilled workers.
Jobs paying $50,000 and $60,000 a year are going unfilled. The
existing skilled workforce is aging.
In Halton something is being done.
Today, December 8, leaders of business, Human Resources
Development Canada, the Ontario education ministry and the region
of Halton are staging a symposium aimed at developing a made in
Halton solution to the problem.
The people attending this event are all dedicated to developing
a program that will make it easier for young people to get
apprenticeship placements.
1415
I congratulate these organizations on their efforts which will
ensure the long term viability of Canada as the place for
attraction and retention of high tech business.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, ten premiers and two territorial leaders are ready and
willing to deliver better health care and social services to
Canadians. Yet the Prime Minister is doing his best to sabotage
their efforts.
Last night at a Liberal fundraising dinner the Prime Minister
tried to portray the social union negotiations as merely a power
grab by the provinces. How could the Prime Minister's dumping on
the provinces possibly lead to better health care and social
services for Canadians?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is what the Premier of Alberta said:
The Prime Minister has indicated that we want to make progress on
this particular issue (the social union). He indicated also that
we might not agree on all the issues but certainly there are some
areas where we can agree and hopefully we will have some resolve
on these issues in the very near future.
We are working with the provinces, but I ask again whether the
Leader of the Opposition again would sign the provincial proposal
as is? Yes or no.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe that
the premiers' social union proposals will somehow weaken the
federal government, which is simply not the case.
The social union is about strengthening Canadians. It is about
giving all Canadians better health care and better social
programs. Why do the Prime Minister and the intergovernmental
affairs minister not stop worrying about who gets the credit for
fixing health care and just get on with the job?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Alberta just said that the Prime
Minister was negotiating in good faith with the provinces.
The problem is not the Prime Minister. The problem is the
Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative
Party. They are unable to tell Canadians if they will sign the
provincial proposal as is. Yes or no.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all the provinces want from the Prime Minister is for
him to respect the Constitution. The Prime Minister has a lot to
do without meddling in provincial affairs.
Why does he not solve the problems in the defence department and
with aboriginal affairs? Where is the new Young Offenders Act?
Why does he not fix the Canadian dollar? Why does he not attack
unfair foreign trade subsidies instead of the provinces?
Is it not true that the Prime Minister's real reason for
meddling in provincial affairs is to divert attention away from
his own failures?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, why is the Leader of the Opposition attacking the
Prime Minister when the provinces are pleased with the way we
have been progressing in these negotiations?
Why is he unable to tell Canadians if he will sign the
provincial proposal as is, yes or no, when the provinces
themselves said that this was a basis for negotiation?
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in just
three short years the government has cut $16.5 billion
cumulatively from health care spending, and the result is 190,000
patients on waiting lists.
Instead of trying to bring in new trophy programs like national
home care, why does the government not fix the problems it has
caused in terms of waiting lists?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the last three years the government has increased transfers to
provinces by $1.5 billion, has increased funding for the Medical
Research Council and has created a health transition fund to
assist constructive change in the way health services are
delivered.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will also make health
the focus of our next major reinvestment.
1420
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the 190,000
people on the waiting list is what I call unfinished business.
The senior citizen waiting for a hip replacement does not want
somebody to come into her house and fix meals for her. She wants
a new hip so she can fix meals for herself.
Why does the government not fix the unfinished business before
it launches off on new trophy programs and fix the waiting list
now?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member fails to understand that the delivery of health
service is the responsibility of provincial governments. The
member opposite should bear in mind that governments in provinces
across the country have made their own priorities and their own
choices in terms of how their dollars are spent.
If there are waiting lists then I wonder whether the member
opposite would join with me in meeting with the provincial
minister of health in Alberta or other provinces to discuss with
them how the provinces will address these issues.
So far as we are concerned we have made clear that we will make
reinvesting in health from the federal perspective the focus of
our next budget.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, at a press conference held jointly with the Premier
of Alberta, the Prime Minister of Canada, in an obvious attempt
to divide the provinces and isolate Quebec, questioned the good
faith of the Premier of Quebec in the matter of the social
union.
What message is the Prime Minister sending by trying to isolate
Quebec just as negotiations are entering a crucial stage?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no one is trying to isolate anyone.
What is all this sudden paranoia about? We are negotiating
together. The Quebec premier joined a little late, in August,
but he is welcome, and if there is a way to improve the social
union for all Canadians, it would be a good thing. We hope he
will negotiate in good faith.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are not paranoid, but we are not deaf.
When he talks about not negotiating in good faith, as he just
did, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is falling back
into his old ways.
When the Prime Minister and the minister talk about bad faith,
should they not give thought to the attitude of the Prime
Minister of Canada, who yesterday announced in Edmonton, without
either advising or consulting Mr. Klein, that he planned to
remain involved in youth matters, which should come under
provincial jurisdiction? Is the fact that he did not even
consult the provinces not an indication of his contempt for
them?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, consultations were held and we even had a major meeting
on May 13. The Government of Quebec did not sign, but that is
not unusual.
There is a lot of unemployment among the youth. It seems to me
that all governments must work together, and that is what we are
doing.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister just started a Canada-wide tour and already it does not
bode well for the Canadian social union agreement.
The Prime Minister is speculating right and left about the good
faith of the Premier of Quebec.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not agree that
the Prime Minister's remarks reflect an attitude of contempt not
only for the Premier of Quebec but also for all Quebec premiers
whom, at one time or another, took the same stand?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada did not say that the
Premier of Quebec was acting in bad faith. He said that he hoped
he would act in good faith.
But if you want us to list all the instances where the Premier
of Quebec accused the Prime Minister of acting in bad faith, it
will take us all afternoon.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is all this
finger pointing how constitutional negotiations are conducted in
Canada?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: They are cry babies.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: How can the minister and the Prime Minister
question the good faith of the Premier of Quebec when the Prime
Minister of Canada just showed his bad faith on the issue by
announcing on his own, unilaterally and without any
consultation, a youth strategy that really concerns the
provinces?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not unusual for one level of government to be
rightly or wrongly under the impression that it was not
sufficiently consulted by the other.
That is why negotiations are under way regarding the Canadian
social union. One area we want to improve is the two way
consultation process. This is under negotiation, and we hope to
improve matters.
1425
If the Premier of Quebec is indeed acting in good faith, as we
hope he is, I guess he will agree with the other premiers that
there is currently a basis for negotiations and will be willing
to negotiate with a great deal of flexibility and openness.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, publicly
funded MRI scanners in Ontario are being used on dogs while the
sick sometimes wait six months. Federal and provincial cutbacks
force hospitals to moonlight by selling their MRI services to
veterinarians. If your dog needs a scan no problem; 48 hours fix
you right up. If your child needs a scan it may take a lot
longer.
If the health minister disagrees with these practices, what is
he doing about it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the New Democratic Party should be aware that the
decision on how such scans are used or financed is a matter for
provincial governments.
The leader of the New Democratic Party should also be aware that
the provincial government in Ontario has cut back four times
through inappropriate tax cuts, four times the amount reduced
through reductions to transfer payments. It is a decision of the
Ontario government. It is a choice by the Harris government in
Ontario of its priorities that has resulted in this regrettable
situation.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister just loves to blame the provinces, but he knows
that the $6 billion in Liberal cuts deprived the federal
government of the moral authority to even criticize provincial
governments, let alone demand accountability.
The minister claims that his government supports the five
principles of medicare. Could he explain to the House which of
these medicare principles dictates that a dog owner with cash
takes priority over a citizen in need of health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member will have to take this matter up with the Premier of
Ontario. It is the Premier of Ontario, the Tory Premier of
Ontario, and his NDP predecessor who made their choices about how
health care would be delivered in the province of Ontario.
As much as we might deplore the choice by the Tory Government of
Ontario to prefer tax cuts for those who least need it over
health care for Ontarians, it is a matter to take up with the
Premier of Ontario.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1993
when the government took office the Canadian dollar was at 75.5
cents U.S. Since then the dollar has dropped 14%, dropping 9%
over the last eight months and hitting record lows last summer.
When the dollar drops so does the standard of living of
Canadians. In fact in the third quarter of this year there has
been a 3.5% increase in the cost of living of Canadians over the
same period last year. As the dollar drops we are seeing
Canadians suffer.
Will the minister explain to Canadians why the dollar has gone
into a free fall under his leadership?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993 the unemployment rate in the country was 11.5%.
Today it is 8%. In 1993 there were 1.5 million fewer Canadians
employed. In 1993 our productivity rate was below that of the
United States. Today it is above that of the United States. In
1993 our interest rates were 350 basis points above those of the
United States. Today our long term rate is the lowest rate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think the minister heard my question. My question was about
the dollar and the fact is that our dollar was bigger than his
dollar. While the minister engages in dollar envy, Canadians are
suffering. The fact is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Kings—Hants.
1430
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this is no time for the
minister to engage in dollar envy. When it comes to the Canadian
dollar and standards of living, size does matter. Canadians are
suffering because this minister refuses to commit to lower taxes
and better productivity standards. He is also refusing to commit
to firm debt reduction targets.
The low dollar punishes poorest Canadians the worst because
poorer Canadians pay out more of their money for food, goods and
services.
Is the minister ashamed of being the author of a low dollar
policy that is a de facto tax on the poorest of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only thing the Tories had bigger was the deficit.
If we compare the country today to what it was like in 1993 when
we took office, one only had to be minister of finance for three
weeks to have that first meeting down at the IMF. We had a
country that had not lived up to one decent projection in eight
years. We had a country whose currency was under attack. We had
a country where interest rates were climbing.
Today we have the strongest balance sheet—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government says that it cannot do anything about
administering the last rites to the APEC inquiry. The minister
keeps saying let it do its job. It is absolutely dysfunctional.
This House, on the other hand, can do anything necessary to get
to the truth of any problem in Canada. This is the highest court
in the land and we can do something about it.
Let me just ask who all is in favour of shutting down this
inquiry and opening up a full judicial independent inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the President of the British Columbia Civil
Liberties Association told CBC Radio: “The B.C. Civil Liberties
Association is a complainant in this hearing and we believe that
the public complaints commission is the right forum to hear our
complaints”.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a nice try, but that forum is a defunct forum. It is not
operating right now. It has been completely castrated in large
respect by this government.
I would like it acknowledged that the RCMP say it is dead, the
students say it is dead and the lawyers say it is dead. The
former solicitor general has resigned, the head of the panel has
resigned and the head of the commission is in hiding.
Why will we not get a real inquiry to find the real story and
the real truth behind this?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the president of the British Columbia Civil Liberties
Association said: “I think it is important to put on record that
a judicial inquiry would be subject to the same kinds of
complaints and the same kinds of delays. We want our complaint
heard in front of the public complaints commission because we
believe it is important in a democracy that there be an effective
mechanism for civilian oversight that is arm's length from both
the RCMP and the government”.
I rest my case.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
NATIONAL HOME CARE PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on July
10, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs declared to the
Canadian press that “In the case of the home care program, we
are hoping for an agreement but we will not proceed without the
provinces' agreement. We cannot do it without them; it would not
be a good program”.
In light of this statement, what does the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs have to say to his Prime Minister who
has, from all appearances, prepared his home care program
already, on his own, and announced the details to Mr. Klein
while in Alberta yesterday?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has a good imagination.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
the minister does not have the right answers, that is the kind
of responses we get.
If he wants to show some consistency, ought the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs not to start by convincing the Prime
Minister to negotiate the agreement on social union, and to
address the home care issue with the premiers within the
framework of the social union only after that?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I withdraw my previous words. The hon. member has no
imagination.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
Christmas Canadians were supposed to get a $350 gift under the
tree from the EI fund, but the finance minister decided he was
going to keep $290 of that and give Canadians a $58 lump of coal.
Now with his CPP tax hike on January 1 he is even going to take
back the lump of coal and the stocking along with it. Why is this
finance minister so intent on scrooging Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member better get a new writer. The basic
issue is the future of the Canada pension plan. The Reform Party
does not believe in the Canada pension plan. The Liberal party
does believe in the Canada pension plan.
More important, Canadians overwhelmingly believe in the Canada
pension plan. They want it preserved. They want it there for
themselves, for their children, for the generations to come, and
it will be there because this government will make sure it is
there.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the finance minister believes so dearly in the Canada pension
plan, I wonder why he fired the independent actuary of the plan.
I wonder how many actuaries he will fire before he gets the
number he wants.
What is the real rate for the Canada pension plan? Is it 11%,
12%, 13%?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the real question is what would happen to those
thousands and thousands of pensioners who would have to suffer
the $3.5 billion cut in old age pensions that the Reform Party
has put forth as part of its program. What would happen to those
hundreds of thousands of Canadians if they did not have a Canada
pension plan available to them and were forced to rely on
themselves, those who are unable to save for their old age
retirement?
What would happen to those Canadians who are entitled to believe
that if they work hard all their lives they are entitled to a
decent retirement? Those are the people we are speaking for.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the number of
Canadian children living in poverty is constantly increasing.
Yet, what is the government talking about in the House, just
before the Christmas recess? About reducing taxes for the rich,
subsidizing sports tycoons and paying golf club memberships for
officials in the Business Development Bank of Canada. There is
nothing in there for the poor.
What should poor children and their parents think when they see
that the government finds it perfectly normal that the Business
Development Bank of Canada would pay $220,000 to subsidize golf
club memberships for its officials, when they are not getting
anything?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly
the member has not been paying attention over the last couple of
years, as we have been preoccupied with poverty on this side of
the House and have delivered the national children's benefit
which will put $1.7 billion into the hands of poor families.
That is on top of the $5.1 billion we already spend on that
group.
1440
We also think the best way is to get people back to work. That
is the best solution to poverty and we have introduced many
programs such as the transitional jobs fund and the youth
employment strategy in order to accomplish that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of Finance, this time.
There are children living in poverty because there are parents
living in poverty. Which solution is best to help them: to lower
the taxes paid by the rich by dipping into the employment
insurance fund, or to give back to the unemployed the billions
of dollars that were taken from them through the cuts made in
recent years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that we must improve the plight of the poorest
families. This is why, last year, we took steps to exempt
400,000 Canadians from having to pay taxes.
This is why we have earmarked $1.8 billion for the national
child benefit. This is why we increased by $45 million the
deduction for child care. This is why the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the government invested millions and
millions of dollars to help the middle class and the poor in our
country.
* * *
[English]
FORESTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Greenpeace and other groups are running a full page ad
in the New York Times today to expand their attack on B.C.
forestry jobs. Meanwhile the Liberals spend hundreds of millions
of dollars on self-serving advertising every year.
When will the minister take some of that wasted advertising
money and spend it on something useful like countering foreign
based propaganda that is killing Canadian jobs?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the action in defence of Canadian forestry practices is
already well underway.
We have an established program where we bring buyers from around
the world to Canada to actually see for themselves what Canadian
forestry practices are like; not to rely on misleading
advertising in the newspaper but to come here and examine the
situation and see for themselves.
Experience has shown that when they come to Canada, when they
see our practices as administered primarily by the provinces, in
this case British Columbia, they go away with a much different
view of Canadian forestry practices. Many of them dramatically
change—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we need action overseas on this issue.
Greenpeace is stepping up its misinformation campaign against
forestry jobs with slick and misleading ads in U.S., Japan and
Europe. Yet the Liberals are doing nothing to counter this
campaign. They are simply hoping that it will go away.
Instead of spending millions on warm and fuzzy Liberal ads
within Canada, when will we see hard hitting government ads in
foreign newspapers countering Greenpeace's anti-forestry jobs
campaign?
Mr. Bob Speller (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada shares B.C.'s concern about this misinformation.
The Government of Canada through its consulates and with working
with the provinces in the industry has been putting forward
internationally very strong arguments against this. We will
continue to fight on behalf of B.C. forestry workers.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
although shipbuilding is a high-tech industry that creates
thousands of well-paid jobs, the federal government has no
shipbuilding policy, nothing comparable with that of the United
States, for example.
Why does the federal government still have no shipbuilding
policy that would encourage Canadian shipowners to have their
vessels built here and to create jobs here instead of having
them built in China or Korea, as Canada Steamship Lines does?
1445
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, the preamble to the question is false.
We have an accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% on ships
built in Canada. We have a 25% tariff on non-NAFTA foreign built
ships, a policy of domestic procurement, and financing for
commercially viable projects through the Export Development
Corporation.
These are components of a strong shipbuilding policy in Canada.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Last week police broke a major sex ring and freed dozens of
female sex slaves from brothels across the greater Toronto area.
Eight people were arrested and charged with supplying Canadian
brothels with as many as 160 Asian women every year.
How can this happen in Canada? How can an organized sex ring
import sex slaves into Canada? What is the government doing to
prevent this kind of activity from occurring in the future?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these arrests were the
result of an official task force composed of members of police
forces and immigration officers.
It is clear that Canada is committed to combat this problem. We
must realize that people smuggling and trafficking in human
beings, particularly women and children, is an international
phenomenon. That is why we are engaged with different countries
to combat that problem. Under the leadership of the United
Nations we are working right now on an international protocol to
get rid of the problem.
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 20 I asked the minister about voting
irregularities in the Canadian Wheat Board elections. The
minister defended the process. Now we have learned that the
election results were incorrectly tabulated by the government's
consulting firm in at least three districts. The entire election
results are now suspect.
Will the government order an independent audit immediately?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the independent election co-ordinator, KPMG, is
investigating the problems. Additional external professional
expertise is being acquired to ensure absolute accuracy,
including an audit if that is necessary. The problems will be
corrected as rapidly as possible.
It should be noted it is because we have had a very open, public
and totally transparent process in the hands of an independent
professional that any problems have been quickly identified and
the corrective action taken.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if that was open, I would not want to see it when it was
closed.
As a result of the wheat board's lack of transparency we are now
experiencing U.S. blockades and threatened loss of trade.
American and Canadian farmers are fed up with the secrecy at the
wheat board. Once and for all let us cut out the secrecy and get
the auditor general to do the books. How many wild oats is the
wheat board and this minister trying to bury?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if anything, the hon. member is very persistent in his
mythology.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: And the opposition applauds
mythology.
Under the new legislation we have adopted, there will be, for
the first time ever, a board of directors, two-thirds directly
elected by farmers. It will be those directors, including those
farmers, who make the determination about what should be released
publicly and what in the interests of commercial confidentiality
needs to be retained. It will be producers on the board of
directors—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
* * *
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Liberals spread rumours about privatization, leak polls and
hold closed door meetings on the future of Devco, but do not have
the guts to come to Cape Breton and tell the truth about their
plans.
Will the minister today commit to stopping the backroom deals
and pledge to visit Cape Breton before making any final decisions
about the future? Yes or no? Will you come to Cape Breton?
The Speaker: I remind hon. members to please address
their questions through the Chair. The hon. Minister of Natural
Resources.
1450
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, rather than hyperbole, insults and innuendo, what I am
concerned with is a proper solution with respect to the future of
Devco. In that respect I have been consulting very closely with
the board of directors who are charged with the responsibility
for managing Devco. I have had the opportunity on several
occasions to meet with the premier. I have had the opportunity
to meet with representatives of the union. I will continue that
close consultation in the interests of arriving at the proper
result, not just a hysterical one.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the same minister.
There are press reports that this minister will announce a short
term funding formula for Devco. Will the minister confirm whether
or not that funding is forthcoming? Will the minister tell us,
does the government have a plan to end the uncertainty for the
future of Devco and ensure its future as a crown corporation, or
will it be another case of Liberal privatization?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we want is a solution that works.
In the first instance there are concerns about short term
cash flow problems at Devco through the balance of this fiscal
year. People may be assured that those issues, if they arise,
will be addressed in such a way that the workers for example have
no need to be concerned about their salary situation. For the
longer term we are working with all interested parties to get a
solution that does work and to alleviate the uncertainty for the
people of Cape Breton.
* * *
SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today the
representatives from the shipbuilding industry from across Canada
from coast to coast met with members of this House.
The industry is asking for a fair national shipbuilding policy.
The low Canadian dollar is making it harder for this industry to
compete. It costs more to build a ship in Canada because of our
sagging Canadian dollar. The industry is at a competitive
disadvantage with European countries that receive subsidies. Our
people are not asking for a subsidy.
Will the Minister of Industry bring in a national shipbuilding
policy and put these people back to work?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the low Canadian dollar is hurting Canadian exports,
the hon. member must have been reading her question upside down.
There is a policy of a 33.3% straight line depreciation rate.
Canadian built ships can be written off faster than any other
asset. There is a 25% tariff on ships that are being imported
into Canada. There is support for the shipbuilders from the
Export Development Corporation. There is a government
procurement policy on Canadian shipping.
The problem the hon. member for Saint John has is that she wants
subsidies for the shipbuilding industry. We are not prepared to
give them. A Tory government developed a deficit of $42 billion
giving handouts like that.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
shipbuilding industry in Saint John, New Brunswick bid on 54
contracts and could not compete with the European countries.
The minister is very much confused. The industry is asking for
a policy that includes tax deferrals or loan guarantees, neither
of which are subsidies.
The Liberal Party adopted a policy in 1993 and it was one of its
priorities to bring in a national shipbuilding policy. It is
five years later. When will the minister and the government
bring in a shipbuilding policy?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am forced to admit that the policy is the same as the
one the previous Conservative government followed. However, let
me say that does not mean it is all bad. In this case we have
support for the shipbuilding industry. A straight line
depreciation rate of 33.3% is faster than most other rates of
depreciation. There is a 25% tariff.
What they want is something that will amount to nothing more
than the kinds of subsidies the world is engaged in within this
sector. We cannot afford it.
* * *
1455
TAXATION
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. The opposition wants
us to believe that the minister is in favour of higher taxes as a
way of boosting productivity. Can the minister tell this House
where he really stands on this issue?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I saw my local paper on Saturday morning and there it
was “High taxes benefit Canadian economy”. I thought, what a
stupid idea. Imagine my dismay to discover that it was being
attributed to me.
No, I do not favour high taxes. I know that lower taxes will
benefit the Canadian economy. That is why I am proud of the
hundreds of millions of dollars of tax reductions we brought in
in the last budget. That is why I am convinced as we continue to
gain control over the deficit, as we improve the health of our
finances in Canada, that we are going to see more tax reductions
to benefit all Canadians.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
Post's slashing of the stamp commissions has resulted in 30
franchised outlets filing for closure. By next August, it is
believed that 100%, all of the franchises in the urban centres
will be closed.
Why is the minister systematically dismantling the franchise
system across Canada? When will he get tough with Canada Post
and save these urban outlets?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the past two
months, Canada Post met with over 600 franchise operators,
amended its commission plan and on December 1 implemented its new
amended plan. Franchise operators that have $200,000 or $300,000
worth of sales are not losing any money. Those above $300,000
receive an annual fee of $25,000 that they never received before.
Canada Post believes that is a good plan. Let us give it time
to work and we will see what happens.
* * *
[Translation]
AVIATION SAFETY
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
some time now, an increasing number of airplane and helicopter
accidents have been reported by the media.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada says that the aviation
industry, Nav Canada, and the regulatory agency must take action
before a collision involving a large passenger airliner occurs.
The public is worried.
Can the Minister of Transport assure the House that deregulation
and the privatization of Nav Canada, together with cuts in the
number of employees responsible for safety, have no effect on—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
Transport has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to my honoured colleague,
members of the House of Commons and to all Canadian citizens, we
can guarantee that there is no threat to the safety of Canadians
by the policies being implemented by this government.
Safety is top priority. I would like to point out to the House
that the International Civil Aviation Organization of the United
Nations just finished an oversight safety program and has
declared in its interim report that Canada has one of the top,
safest aviation programs in the world.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance says that he has the strongest balance sheet.
On whose back? On the backs of the unemployed people. His
government can deny it, but the UN specifically blamed the
government's UI reform for the dramatic drop in the proportion of
unemployed workers receiving benefits. In 1994, soon after the
Liberals were elected, 61% of the unemployed got benefits. That
number has dropped to 38%.
My question is for the deputy prime minister. Will the
government do what the UN asks and provide adequate coverage for
all the unemployed workers in this country?
1500
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
refers to what is called the B/U rate and suggests that it is
down around 40%. The correct number is 78%.
He fails to realize that not all Canadians are automatically
meant to be covered by EI. For example, if people have never
worked a day in their life they are not entitled to EI, but we do
have other programs for them. If they decide to quit their jobs
so that they can go back to school, they are not entitled to EI.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS BY MEMBER
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this question of privilege arises from a situation that
occurred on December 3 following question period. It was the
same situation that occurred with the member next to me with
regard to a question put through you to the Minister of Transport
that involved a former member of the House, Doug Young, who is
involved in a very controversial highway deal back in New
Brunswick.
Yesterday I rose on a point of order, not on a question of
privilege. I do not have to get into as much detail as the
member from Nova Scotia who sits next to me did, but it was the
same force of intimidation and innuendo that the member for
Kenora—Rainy River used against the member from Nova Scotia.
That same tactic was employed against me outside the Chamber in
the parliamentary precincts.
It has gone beyond that.
Not only has it happened to me and the member next to me from
Nova Scotia, but it has happened to a number of members of
parliament on the same issue through the same member and his
staff.
1505
This is where it becomes confusing. Yesterday I rose on a point
of order and not a point of privilege. The issue is very
serious. I will go through specific citations in Beauchesne's.
Citation 92 reads:
A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a
Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties—
It did. It related to a very sensitive question in the House to
which the member opposite took offence. He used threats and
intimidation to shut me up but it did not work. I will now read
citation 93. I want the House to listen very carefully. It
states:
It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence
the vote of, or actions of a Member, is breach of privilege.
Reading on in Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 99, which is
the important one for you to hear, Mr. Speaker, reads:
Direct threats which attempt to influence Members' actions in the
House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege. They do, however,
provide serious problems for the House. They are often made
anonymously and it is rarely possible for the House to examine
them satisfactorily.
This was not made anonymously. It was made in the flesh by the
member for Kenora—Rainy River. Citation 99 concludes with the
following:
The common practice today is to turn the responsibility for
investigating them over to the ordinary forces of the law.
In his apology yesterday to one of the other members, which is
inferring I guess an apology to me, the member was quoted as
saying “if I really meant this threat, if it was a pure and
honest threat and I carried through with the threat”, to quote
the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River from yesterday's
Hansard at page 10986, “I can assure you, he would not be
sitting over there today”, pointing to our seats.
That is a threat. It is not ambiguous. It is direct and is not
in any way made anonymously. It was made by that member sitting
over there. I think this goes beyond an apology. It is a prima
facie case of breach of privilege.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River is
in the House and I am going to give him the floor.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since this was supposed to be put to rest yesterday
based on your ruling, I would like to get some guidance from the
Chair. Standing Order 10 of the House regarding Speaker's
rulings states:
No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such
decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
I am going to ask just a question, Mr. Speaker. If you are
going to allow this debate to go on then I would like the
opportunity to respond to the debate as it is now because it has
become a debate, not a ruling—
The Speaker: Yesterday I ruled on a point of privilege.
This is a different point of privilege and that is why I heard it
today.
1510
In this point of privilege specifically the member for New
Brunswick Southwest mentioned the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy
River and I wanted to give the member for Kenora—Rainy River at
least a chance to say, from his perspective, what transpired in
the House.
This is not the point of privilege from yesterday. That is over
with. I am dealing with the point of privilege for today. The
hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River is here. If he wishes to
intervene, I invite him to do so.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very
clear to you, to all the members of the House and to the member
who just spoke that we had a conversation below this place on the
first floor. It was very much a debate thrust in a difference of
opinion. I was making it very clear to the members, this member
from New Brunswick particularly, that I thought their comments
about a particular ex-member of the House were unbecoming of this
place because they were throwing insults, allegations and slander
when they would not do it outside the House.
That was the conversation. There was no intimidation. It was
very much a debate that we have in this place all the time. I
think it demeans the House when people say things like that about
members, whether they are here or not, or whether they have gone
on to another profession.
The only thing we have in this place is our name. Once we leave
this place, if one slanders a person's name continuously in this
place without any information to back it up—and I said to the
member to say it outside and he refused to say it outside—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I will hear the hon. member
for Kenora—Rainy River.
Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, the debate was
basically about the level of decorum in the House and that I was
personally insulted as a friend of Mr. Young that people would be
making that kind of allegation.
Yesterday I came into my place in good faith as an hon. member
and said that if I had offended anybody with the fact that I am a
little bit aggressive, and I think everybody would admit that,
then I apologize.
Now we are back here because, wanting to get some cheap media
hits, they come back into the House and suggest that I am
basically running at them when in fact I am not. I have said it
once and I am not about to say it again. I made it very clear
yesterday that I apologized if they were offended by the fact
that I had a difference of opinion with them.
The Speaker: Here we have in the House one hon.
member saying that another hon. member said something to him. We
have the other hon. member giving his version of what went on.
They are both hon. members of parliament. They are both giving
their views as to something that transpired. I have to accept
both hon. members' words that this is indeed what transpired.
I rule there is no point of privilege in this case.
[Translation]
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
spite of the matter of privilege I raised in the House on
December 3 concerning leaked committee documents, in particular
the one that occurred on December 2 concerning the report on the
pre-budgetary consultations of the Standing Committee on Finance,
I must unfortunately again today submit to you another case of
contempt for the House.
This morning's Le Droit and Ottawa Citizen gave the key
recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance on the future of the Canadian financial services sector.
This is the sixth committee report leaked in the past two weeks
and, in the case of the Standing Committee on Finance, the
second leak in five days.
1515
Once again, I must remind you that this disclosure betrays the
spirit and the letter that must guide us in the tabling of
committee reports. It is also an affront to democracy, which
suffers from the lack of dissenting opinions by the opposition
parties, implying unanimity or unconditional support for the
government positions reflected by the members of the Liberal
majority on committee.
This action shakes the faith of all parliamentarians of all
parties who agree to abide by the rules of confidentiality and
the parliamentary traditions based on the honour and dignity
incumbent on them through their public responsibility and
democratic mandate.
Need I remind you that this action diminishes parliamentary
privilege, interferes with the work of the Standing Committee on
Finance and does not augur well for the future, creating a
climate of distrust that is both unproductive and discouraging.
There is no doubt that this leak constitutes contempt of the
House.
Allow me once again to quote from Maingot's parliamentary
procedures, chapter 12, at page 240, on the definition of
contempt:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency,
directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as
a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
Mr. Speaker, on December 3, at the time of the first leak by the
Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance, you ruled
that there had been contempt, and you asked the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to submit its
recommendations post haste so that there would be no recurrence.
I am very grateful for your response and wish you to know that
you have our support.
But on December 3 you also said that you did not have the power
to curtail this sort of thing immediately because, in the case
then before us, no member of parliament could be identified,
charged and sanctioned for leaking in-camera proceedings of the
Standing Committee on Finance.
The case that concerns us today is different. In the article by
Éric Beauchesne, on page A-1 of the Ottawa Citizen, two MPs who
are members of the Standing Committee on Finance are quoted, the
Liberal member for Niagara Falls and the Progressive
Conservative member for Kings—Hants.
The article quotes the member for Niagara Falls, who explains
the difference between the Liberal caucus report and the report
of the Standing Committee on Finance, as follows:
[English]
“There is a difference. I cannot tie the hands of business,
but as a representative of consumers I think that if banks need
to merge there ought to be some conditions”.
[Translation]
For his part, the member for Kings—Hants was critical of the fact
that Liberal members could support both their caucus report and
contrary proposals in the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance, and I quote:
[English]
“What this basically indicates is, they didn't know what they
signed onto on the Liberal task force and then probably don't
know what they are signing onto now”.
[Translation]
Moreover, the member for Kings—Hants disclosed the content of the
Conservatives' dissenting opinion before that opinion was tabled
in the House, along with the committee report.
In so doing, the two members confirmed the content of the leak
and commented on the in camera discussions of committee members.
I therefore accuse the Liberal member for Niagara Falls and the
Conservative member for Kings—Hants of showing contempt for the
House by releasing and discussing the content of the report of
the Standing Committee on Finance, before that report was tabled
in the House of Commons on Thursday, along with the dissenting
opinions.
This contempt is all the more serious and disturbing since these
two members, along with the other members of the finance
committee, supported a motion which I moved yesterday morning in
committee, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke,
stipulating:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Finance solemnly
pledge on their honour not to disclose or discuss the content of
the committee report on the future of the financial sector
before its tabling in the House, including the dissenting
opinions of the opposition, as the case may be.
As Victor Hugo said “There are people who observe the rules of
honour the way we observe the stars, from very far”.
Mr. Speaker, I very respectfully submit this to your attention.
If you find there is a prima facie case of contempt for the
House in these disclosures by the member for Niagara Falls and
the member for Kings-Hants, I am prepared to move in the House a
motion that would allow the Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs to investigate the matter.
1520
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following
the comments by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot concerning
the number of days we unfortunately have had repeated and
frequent leaks, I would like to mention that on every occasion
the government House leader rose and joined members from other
parties in condemning these outrageous leaks we have witnessed,
particularly these past few weeks. It is a real hemorrhage.
With regard to the serious problem affecting every one of us
working here in a climate of mutual respect, dignity and honour,
we are ready, Mr. Speaker, to cooperate with you and members
from the other parties in the House to solve it.
I share the concerns expressed by the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot concerning these leaks. However, I would not
go as far as accusing any particular member. I am not familiar
enough with the issue to make such accusations, but I met
briefly with the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance,
who agrees with us and finds this unacceptable.
[English]
It is really more than unfortunate. It is totally unacceptable
that we find ourselves in this situation once more today. I
think we have to commit ourselves to finding a solution to this
problem as soon as we come back after the winter recess.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Things are different today since the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot named two members of this House. Before
I rule on this particular matter, I want to wait for the members
named by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to be in the
House and tell us what happened. After I hear them, I will make
a ruling.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I did send a note saying
that I would like to speak to this question of privilege if I
could.
The Speaker: I would prefer that we continue the question
of privilege after I have heard from the two members who have
been named. I will then enjoin any member who wants to add to
it. No one is deprived from speaking to this.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, further to that, in
fairness to members who have not spoken, could you give us some
notice when these members will be in the House on this issue so
we can address—
The Speaker: When I know the hon. member will know.
I am addressing myself to my hon. colleague who gave me notice
that he was going to bring up a point of order which will take a
few minutes. We are going to listen to it.
I am going to absent myself from the chair. My hon. colleague
will listen to the point of order and we will have discussions on
what transpired in the House and the points made by you and any
other hon. member who may wish to intervene on this point of
order.
* * *
1525
POINTS OF ORDER
ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention a problem relating to
order paper questions. The problem can be categorized as
follows. The first issue I would like to raise is the issue of
the length of the questions. The second is the number of
questions allowed and the length of time taken by the government
to answer the questions. The third matter has to do with a
failure to receive factual answers.
Mr. Speaker, your experience in this House and your wisdom can
be of guidance in these matters. I would appreciate your
comments.
On October 28 I submitted a written question. It was a question
dealing with how the Gladstone decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada had affected the management of the spawn-on-kelp fishery
on the north coast of British Columbia. It was a detailed
question.
A very general question might have elicited some of the same
information, but there is no guarantee of that. For example, I
might have asked: “How did the Gladstone decision affect the
management of the spawn-on-kelp fishery?” But I did not. My
question had a number of sub-parts that attempted to get to the
details of how the decision is now affecting the spawn-on-kelp
fishery.
The detail of the question was developed in conjunction with
several of my constituents who are in the spawn-on-kelp fishery.
All parts of the question involved this issue. All sought
details. None involved any other fishery. None involved any
other court decision.
When the question was submitted, House staff refused to put the
question on the order paper.
I was anxious to have the question put on the order paper as
soon as possible because local fishermen believed the answers
could assist them in making recommendations to the government on
the management of the 1999 fishery which begins in March.
However, staff found the question too long. They requested that
it be divided into five separate questions. At the time I had
one spot for a question on the order paper.
After meeting with staff I was told that if it were divided into
three separate questions they would put it on the order paper.
Obviously their decision was arbitrary. It was not based on the
standing orders. They agreed that the issue of division into
separate questions only arose because of the length of the
question.
I was told by staff that prior to the rule changes emanating
from the McGrath report in 1985 which addressed such matters I
could have put my question on the order paper as 26 individual
questions as there would have been no limit to the number of
questions.
Now we have the worst of both worlds. We have a four question
limitation, but without the government responding within the 45
day period contemplated by the new standing orders. Further we
have House staff who feel empowered and emboldened to arbitrarily
refuse to put questions on the order paper because they consider
them too long. The standing orders do not provide staff with any
guidance on the division of questions.
The present standing order on written questions is a product of
the McGrath report which had recommended a limit of four
questions, with a requirement that they be answered within 30
sitting days. McGrath would have given the Clerk of the House
the power to reject outright or split into separate and distinct
questions those that contained unrelated sub-questions. The
power to “split into separate and distinct questions those
questions that contain unrelated sub-questions” was not given to
the Clerk of the House in the present standing order, nor did the
standing order adopt a 30 day time limit, instead opting for a
weaker 45 day limit that did not contain a requirement to respond
within that period.
McGrath had called for a requirement that the government answer
within the 30 day time period. The only guidance available to
staff is found in the McGrath report, but in a section that was
not adopted. If it had been adopted it would not have given
staff the authority to divide my question because my question
does not in any way contain unrelated sub-questions.
I am concerned that staff may believe it is their job to
arbitrate between the needs of government to have easy questions
and the needs of members to submit thorough and, on occasion,
detailed questions to elicit a detailed and informative answer.
If staff have fallen into such a trap, and I believe it is
possible they have, then they are mistaken and must be extricated
from this trap quickly.
1530
If staff require the authority to divide questions recommended
by McGrath, then the House ought to look at the whole set of
McGrath recommendations on written questions and make the
necessary changes. We set a dangerous precedent when staff
believe it is their job to protect the government and limit
members' right to put forward written questions in a way that is
not authorized or contemplated by the standing orders.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you review my question to ensure
that it complies with the standing order and to ensure that staff
have not misinterpreted their role.
On the second matter, the standing orders of this House indicate
that no member may have more than four written questions on the
Notice Paper at any one time. When the standing orders were
changed to limit the number of questions that may be placed on
the Notice Paper, it was established that members could request
that questions be answered within a fixed period, 45 days. Thus,
limitations were placed both on the number of questions asked and
the days that could elapse before an answer was tabled. A
reasonable balance was established.
The four in 45 rule was never intended to prevent members from
asking questions yet that is what is happening. This is a misuse
of Standing Order 39. It is being used against members. It is
being used to prevent them from asking questions. If answers are
not tabled, the member is prevented from asking further
questions.
The Library of Parliament has reviewed the time it has taken
during this parliament for me to receive an answer to Order Paper
questions. None of the 10 questions I placed on the Notice Paper
during this parliament were answered within the 45 days
contemplated by the standing order.
Question No. 16 was answered in 64 days, Question No. 19 in 58
days, Question No. 33 in 195 days, Question No. 51 in 151 days,
Question No. 56 in 161 days, Question No. 91 in 194 days,
Question No. 103 in 137 days and Question No. 119 in 69 days. Of
the eight questions answered, it took an average of 129 days to
receive an answer, about two and a half times as long as
anticipated by the standing orders.
In addition, I have two unanswered questions on the Notice
Paper, Question No. 132 which was asked on September 18, 1998,
about 80 days ago, and Question No. 138 which was asked on
September 24, 1998, over 75 days ago.
By refusing to answer my questions in the 45 days allotted by
the standing orders, I have been prevented from asking questions
due to the four question limit.
When questions are not answered in a timely fashion as
anticipated by the standing orders, members are prevented from
asking additional questions. I do not believe that was the
intended outcome of the parliamentary reforms following the
McGrath report.
The reforms as reflected in Standing Order 39 were intended to
facilitate members in asking questions and in receiving replies.
Instead we have a situation where my ability to ask questions is
undermined.
If answers require more than 45 days, I believe it would be
appropriate for the government House leader or the government
member responsible for tabling the answers to stand at the end of
45 days and report to the House on the reason for failing to
answer within 45 days and to indicate when an answer could be
anticipated. This could be done within the existing standing
orders.
Australia has a similar practice. Its standing orders provide
that if a question has not been answered in 60 days, the member
may request the Speaker to seek reasons from the minister
concerned. The Australian practice seems to work. In the
Australian parliament the overwhelming majority of questions are
answered within 13 sitting days, according to the Library of
Parliament.
In the United Kingdom parliament the standing orders do not
limit the number of questions for written answers a member may
place and members may specify the day on which they would like
the question answered. Questions are normally answered within one
working week.
Perhaps the most effective way of protecting the member's
ability to place questions on the Notice Paper would be to exempt
from the four question limit those questions that go unanswered
after 45 days. Thus, members would not be prevented from asking
further questions.
1535
If the answers to their existing questions have not been tabled
within the 45 day period anticipated by the standing orders, I
think it appropriate that the House look to the standing orders
of Great Britain and Australia with a view to incorporating the
best of those systems and ours. Certainly, having questions
answered within one week would be most welcome by all
parliamentarians.
Finally on the last point, on March 27, 1998 I asked Question
No. 91. The answer tabled for Question No. 91 for the most part
is not factual.
Written answers are placed on the Notice Paper so that the
members may get the facts on a particular matter. When the answer
is signed and tabled by a minister, there is a reasonable
expectation that the answer is accurate as far as the minister
can ascertain.
For example, Question No. 91 involved the purchase in September
and October 1992 of some 69,000 mefloquine tablets by the
Canadian forces under the authority of the Lariam Safety
Monitoring Study.
In Question No. 91(i) we find an answer that is obviously wrong.
The response given to parliament said that in October 1994 the
Department of Health first became aware through news reports
alleging behaviour changes associated with the use of
mefloquine—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
for Delta—South Richmond would allow, I think we cannot get too
far down this particular road. There seems to be a number of
different questions and the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond
is not the first member to stand and address the fact that it
seemingly takes forever to get a response to a written question.
I do find it my responsibility and prerogative to defend the
clerk and the office of the clerk and point out very clearly that
the clerks and the people working for parliament work for
parliament. They do not work for one party or another. They do
not act as standard bearers for the government. They have a
specific job that is mandated to them to make sure that the
questions are in a form that may be responded to.
Whether or not a written response to a written question received
by a member is factual is a question of debate. What we cannot
do on this point of order is to provide licence for a member to
take issue with the response that was provided by the government.
If there is another way, perhaps in another question, certainly
that is a point of debate.
Having provided this intervention, we will go back on the point
of order of the member for Delta—South Richmond.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into
a debate with you on the issue at this point, but I would like it
if you would hear me out on this matter of the factual answer to
the question. I think it is important. I have a suggestion at
the end which I think is reasonable.
I was talking about Question No. 91(i) and I will take it up
from approximately where I left off. I talked about the response
given to parliament and the fact that news reports were alleging
behaviour associated with the use of mefloquine by Canadian
forces personnel in Somalia as presented by defence counsel in
well publicized court martial and the Somalia Inquiry.
The response sounds plausible until we give it a careful
reading. Defence counsel did not use mefloquine as a defence in
any of the court martial events. The office of the judge
advocate general confirmed with my office that mefloquine was not
raised by defence counsel.
Further, the Library of Parliament reviewed the coverage of
mefloquine and found that in 1994—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Let us stick to the
point of order. The point of order is to the length of time it
takes to get a response to a written question and whether or not
the clerk has any position to change or anything to do with the
length of the question or the complex nature of the question.
The response to a question right now at this time is debate. If
the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond takes exception to the
response to the question that he submitted, that is an entirely
different kettle of fish. It is totally different and that is
debate.
If the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond wants to close on
the original point of order which had to do with the length of
time it took to get a response and the fact that the question
that was placed was particularly complex and had to be broken
down, fine. But we are not going to continue the debate upon the
merits of the response of the government.
1540
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that
there were three issues I had concern with. They are related.
They have to do with the issue of Order Paper questions.
The first item I wanted to address was the length of the
question. As I indicated quite clearly, in my view there is
nothing in the standing orders that limits the length of the
question. To tell me on one occasion to come on in and we will
divide the question up into five parts and then after we have a
conversation three parts is good enough, suggests to me that
there is something arbitrary at work here. It is not following
any set prescription by the rules of order. That was the first
item I wanted to raise.
The second item was the number of questions allowed and the
length of time taken by the government to answer. As I
indicated, what is happening is that we are well over the 100
days on average to get some of these questions answered. For
some of them it is taking almost 200 days. That prevents me from
doing my job because there is a limit on the number of questions.
The third issue is related and it is the factual nature of
responses. This is of concern. I am not suggesting for a moment
that there is an intent on the other side to provide me with
information which is not factual. What I would suggest is that
somebody on the ministerial staff is not taking the care to
ensure that the job is done properly.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The point is made by
the hon. member for Delta—South Richmond on the three separate,
distinct issues.
For the interest of members, Standing Order 39(2) reads:
The Clerk of the House, acting for the Speaker, shall have full
authority to ensure that coherent and concise questions are
placed on the Notice Paper in accordance with the practices of
the House, and may, on behalf of the Speaker, order certain
questions to be posed separately.
It is right there in the standing orders. We accept your point.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be brief on this issue. I would suggest that the Speaker
not enter into debate on this issue but give rulings on it.
Today on the Order Paper, there are several questions with at
least five parts, and a number of longer questions. The member
for Delta—South Richmond and the member for Calgary Centre have
questions with 10 parts. The question of the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche weighs in at 11 parts. Without any clear
guidelines, I suppose I could pick apart here in the House these
long questions and make the argument that they are 10 or 11
separate questions. We just cannot put a number on the parts to
a question and cut it off there.
I take it that guidelines are imposed to these questions but it
is not clear what those guidelines are. I think that is what we
are dealing with here. I will read Standing Order 39 which you
began to do in my stead, Mr. Speaker.
Standing Order 39(2) says:
The Clerk of the House, acting for the Speaker, shall have full
authority to ensure that coherent and concise questions are
placed on the Notice Paper in accordance with the practices of
the House, and may, on behalf of the Speaker, order certain
questions to be posed separately.
The only reference in the standing orders to separating
questions is that the clerk has the authority to do so. Nothing
more, nothing less. I am not blaming the clerk. We have charged
him with this responsibility without giving him the detailed
guidelines.
The standing orders also have a provision whereby the government
is required to answer the questions within 45 days. While that
45 day guideline is clear, the government does not have to obey
it, which is the big problem I am sure members opposite have.
The rules governing questions were established in the 33rd
Parliament. Unfortunately the members in that parliament struck
a bad deal with the government. In exchange for the restrictions
on the number of questions a member could submit to the
government, the government promised to answer the questions
within 45 days. The problem is that the members are forced to
uphold their end of the bargain but the government is not.
This is the same sort of deal the government made with respect
to Standing Order 73. The government asked that the motion to
refer a bill to committee before second reading be automatically
time allocated to 180 minutes in exchange for more flexibility in
the type of amendments to be proposed in committee.
1545
In practice the government gets its time allocation guaranteed
in the standing orders, but the acceptability of amendments is no
better than before. In some cases it is worse because the
government began to take advantage of the fast-tracking mechanism
of this process and started to send controversial bills to
committee before second reading.
Finally, in questionable cases regarding order paper questions
the member should be given the benefit of the doubt. The
government does not need any favours since the rules
overwhelmingly favour it to begin with. If you are going to
impose strict restrictions on members with respect to the length
of questions, Mr. Speaker, then I hope you impose the 45 day
requirement for the government to answer those questions.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to intervene on this point of order.
The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond does the House a
service by raising this and by being persistent in raising it. I
recall speaking to a similar point of order not so long ago.
I was vice-chair of the McGrath committee and, therefore, in
some way responsible for this rule whereby members of parliament
can only put four questions on the order paper in return for the
prompt answering of those questions within 45 days. We actually
recommended 30 days, but what eventually came out of it was 45
days. The idea was that in return for limiting the number of
questions there would be a prompt answering.
Other parliaments answer within 13 days or within other periods
of time which are much shorter than is the rule here. It is not
just a question of confidence, it is also a question of respect
for the rules of the House of Commons and for members of
parliament.
One of the reasons people want to be members of parliament is so
they can put questions to the government and get answers. If we
put questions and cannot get answers, if it takes as long for us
to get answers as anybody else, then what is the point of being a
member of parliament? We are no different than anyone else
outside the Chamber. We get elected to this place so that we
might have access to information and to answers from the
government that other people do not have because they are not
elected to this place. To leave the answering of these questions
for so long, the government shows a disrespect for members of
parliament and for the rules of the House of Commons. It is just
not good enough to keep getting up and saying that this question
cannot be answered and that question cannot be answered.
It is part of the general malaise. The government does not
respect the standing orders. It does not answer questions.
People leak committee reports. The Speaker stands up to try to
get order. People keep on yapping and yelling. What is going on
around here, Mr. Speaker? It is not just Christmas. There is a
general malaise of systemic disrespect for the rules that we put
in place.
The government makes announcements. It does not even go across
to the press gallery. Now it goes all the way to Edmonton to
make announcements about a national youth job strategy. We have
complained about the government showing disrespect for the House.
This is all part of the same piece.
I would like to support the member in his point of order. He
has made some helpful suggestions by noting practices that are
established in other parliaments which put us to shame, both
collectively and put the government to shame in terms of the
amount of time it takes to answer questions.
The other point the member makes is that if our questions are
not answered we cannot ask more questions. If the government is
going to persist in not answering questions, then I think the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or some other
body should look at other means by which members can continue to
put questions on the order paper.
But then we would really be back to the old system. If members
can put more than four questions on the order paper because the
four that they have already put on have not been answered in the
45 day period, then the government will say “Oh well, they are
happy. They got their questions on the order paper. They have
eight or nine questions, so we will take longer to answer them”.
1550
That is one of the dangers in that particular suggestion. In
the absence of the government actually answering the questions,
it becomes a way of restricting a member's right to ask further
questions.
That is all I have to say on the matter. But I urge you, Mr.
Speaker, when you discuss this point of order with your
colleague, to make some helpful suggestions and to indicate very
strongly that there is an obligation on the part of the
government to respect the standing orders of the House of
Commons.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the remarks of members opposite. I
would like to confirm that the member for Delta—South Richmond
has been persistent on this matter. He does take a great
interest in the questions which he has tabled.
However, I was very disappointed by the remarks having to do
with the interpretation of the existing standing orders. There
was some criticism of the existing standing orders. Mr. Speaker,
I think you picked up on this. I do not think it is appropriate
to bring in staff and have them use their best efforts to
interpret the standing orders which have been set by this House.
I hope that when you give some thought to this matter you
discount those particular remarks of the member. In fact, in his
second intervention he gave some indication that that was not
what he meant. The standing orders exist. He has some criticism
of them. It is the job of staff to interpret them. They have to
interpret with respect to criteria. One criterion is length. The
member has addressed that. As well, the government House leader
gave the Speaker some other information on that point.
The number of questions has also been addressed. Again the
staff do their best to address the length and number of
questions.
Then there is the question of the 45 day time limit. When I
last looked, a few days ago, the government had received upwards
of 200 standing questions. It has answered close to three out of
four of those questions. With respect to the 45 day limit, when
I last looked, somewhere around 12% or 13% of the questions have
not been answered within the 45 day limit. Those are the facts.
Sometimes members, such as this member who has a great interest
in and uses this method very systematically, can put down
questions which might involved detailed consultation with every
federal department. That is quite different than answering a
question which involves going to one of our departments, getting
a response and coming back to the House of Commons. Therefore,
this relatively small percentage of questions which take longer
than 45 days to answer are questions which have a complication of
some sort.
Another thing concerns me. We heard the opposition House leader
speaking a moment ago. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that
earlier this year we had the required review, a full-scale debate
in the House on our standing orders. If this thing has been
ticking like this, the way to deal with it is not to get up and
attack the staff, it is to get up and deal with the House of
Commons and the standing orders. I do not recall—and I could be
wrong—in a full day of debate earlier this year this particular
standing order being raised or these matters being raised.
Perhaps the member has a case, but there is a way in which that
case can be made.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been
mentioned. It is our standing committee which is responsible for
the standing orders. Again, without getting up and attacking the
staff of the House, it is possible for any member to write to the
chair of that committee to raise concerns about either the
standing order or about ways in which the standing orders are
being interpreted by the staff, if the member has particular
views.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will take these points into account
when you consider the member's point of order.
1555
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the Speaker
indicated earlier, he will be taking into account all sides of
the argument and some of the historical arguments that were
raised previously, which I know from being a chair occupant have
been raised from time to time. The Speaker will get back to the
House in due course.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a
point. I do not think I was attacking the staff. To suggest
that is to deflect criticism away from the issue.
The issue is that when we do not define a rule carefully, then
the staff are put in the position of having to make a judgment
call, and that is not fair. It is not fair to them and it is not
fair to us to have to debate with them about a particular issue
that we may feel strongly about.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The point of the
hon. member is well made and I am sure the staff take comfort in
the fact that that was not the intent of your intervention.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I would give my assurance to the House
that there have been deliberations with representatives of all
parties and the member for New Brunswick Southwest regarding the
taking of a division on Bill C-302 which is scheduled for the
conclusion of Private Members' Business on Wednesday, December 9,
1998. I believe you would find consent for the following:
That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-302, Wednesday,
December 9, 1998, the question shall be deemed put, a recorded
division deemed requested and deferred until the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders on Tuesday, February 2, 1999.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion presented by the chief government whip. Is it the
pleasure of the House to give unanimous consent to the chief
government whip to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to accept the motion as presented by the chief
government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an
act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to
amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, be read the third
time and passed.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43, an act to establish the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
I will begin my remarks by saying that the government's
insistence on creating the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
against everyone's advice, starting with the vast majority of
provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec,
gives the impression that certain Liberal ministers are
suffering from what I would call “acute neroitis”.
This disease is named after the infamous Roman emperor Nero who,
as members will remember, played music while watching Rome being
devastated by raging fires that were set at his own command.
At times, I even wonder if this Liberal government does not have
among its members firebugs of such talent that even the former
Roman emperor would be red with envy.
One has to be a real hot head to insist so doggedly on setting
up an agency that will result in a 20% reduction of the Canadian
public service as soon as it comes into being.
Under the guise of modernizing the state, our Liberal Neros are
establishing a new structure which will translate overnight into
a 20% cut of our public service.
For the sake of what interests is the government taking steps it
knows full well are meant to take apart the government
apparatus? Where is the public interest when, in this era of
electronic communications, the government is getting ready to
transfer to a private agency an incredible amount of personal
and financial information on our fellow citizens in Quebec and
Canada?
1600
I must admit this government worries me. It worries me a lot.
Its policies worry me because sometimes they seem to come from
nowhere, as is the case with this Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. Or rather, and this is even less reassuring, it would
appear the government is taking orders from some interests
unknown to you and I, that would rather remain behind the scenes
and are in any case contrary to the best interests of the
Canadian population as a whole.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency is such a priority for the government at this
point in time when there are more urgent issues we should be
dealing with. If only this government's ministers would leave
their ivory tower to go and see what goes on in the real world
they would realize that, as we speak, a real social crisis is
ripping the country apart, leaving behind an increasing number
of unemployed workers, something which unfortunately does not
seem to matter for this government.
Government members should feel ashamed to expand so much energy
today on debating the creation of a new structure nobody wants
when so many of our fellow citizens do not even know where their
next meal, and their children's, is coming from or whether they
will have a place to sleep tonight.
I will be blunt: this government should be ashamed of talking
about creating a new private agency that 40,000 Revenue Canada
employees will have to rely on for their jobs. These are fathers
and mothers who, in two years, could very well see their salary
reduced, their working conditions changed for the worse or their
job simply disappear without being able to do anything about it.
It is as though the government were set on imposing economic
uncertainty on the largest possible number of our fellow
citizens.
It is the same government that cut transfers to the provinces,
transfers aimed at helping students, social welfare recipients
and the sick.
It is not surprising that Jean Chrétien's Canada is a country
where injustice and inequity are commonplace, a country where
the worst thing that can happen to someone is to lose one's job
or to be poor and unemployed, because this country is run by a
government that does not care about its weakest and most
vulnerable citizens.
The worst threat facing the people of this country does not come
from the nasty separatists who were elected in Quebec and who
create political and economic uncertainty. No. The threat does
not come from this side.
For thousands and thousands of Canadians, the enemy is not in
Quebec City but rather in the federal capital, in Ottawa. The
enemy is this Liberal government, whose employment insurance
reform has reduced the rate of contributors eligible for
benefits from 80% to a mere 42%.
Thousands of our fellow citizens who had paid EI premiums lost
the right to receive benefits when they needed it and were
forced onto the welfare rolls and into poverty by this
government.
As if that were not enough, after denying access to EI benefits
to thousands of our fellow citizens, thereby generating a
surplus of billions of dollars in the EI fund, this government
is now contemplating the robbery of the century and is trying to
get its hands on this surplus and use it for its own ends.
1605
Despite what some ministers across the way might say, thousands
of our fellow citizens are convinced that the worst threat to
our country does not come from the PQ government in Quebec, but
rather from the federal Liberal government.
Just last Saturday evening, I attended a function where I met
around 150 senior citizens from my riding. These people
unanimously told me that they are outraged and deeply offended
to see that, while poverty is rampant in this country, the only
concern of the government is not to save the poor. That would be
too much to ask of them. Its only concern is, believe it or not,
to save the millionaires in Canadian professional sport.
As far as I know, none of these sports millionaires are
wondering how they will manage to put food on the table for
their families. I can assure the House that the privileged few
who feed off the system do not have these kinds of worries.
Still, the government has decided to help them out, to save
them. But to save them from what? Is it not normal for people
who earn millions of dollars to pay taxes accordingly?
The Liberal government does not seem to think so, because it is
about to reduce by hundreds of millions of dollars the taxes
paid by these poor sports millionaires. The government wants to
fund these measures at the expense of the real poor from the
middle class, in part by drawing billions of dollars from the EI
surplus that belongs to them.
Would someone please explain to the leader of this government
and to his ministers that millionaires are not poor? There is a
limit to being out of touch with the reality of those who
elected them and whom they wooed by promising to represent them
well and defend their interests, only to forget everything the
day after the election. I think it is high time the Prime
Minister start listening again to what ordinary people have to
say.
I urge him to visit seniors in my riding of Jonquière and listen
to what they think of his plans to help professional sports
tycoons, while at the same time dropping 40,000 loyal government
employees, including 1,000 or so in the Jonquière tax centre,
employees with whose services the government is about to
dispense by shifting them to a private agency that will not be
obligated to them in any way two years from now.
Before rushing to the rescue of professional sports tycoons,
this government must scrap Bill C-43 and reassure the 40,000
affected employees that they no longer have to fear for their
future. If it fails to do so, it will mean that the government
has a hidden agenda, which is completely different from the one
it sold Quebeckers and Canadians in the last election campaign.
In the 1997 election campaign, the government never told Revenue
Canada employees that, as a reward, 40,000 of them would fall
into the clutches of a bureaucratic structure. The government
never said that, and therefore had no mandate to do so.
This government never told Quebeckers and Canadians that, if
they voted for it in 1997, it would set about dismantling Canada
a little at a time, and yet this is what it is doing by
privatizing 20% of the federal public service. This government
never said so openly and therefore was never mandated to do
this.
I repeat, this government has no mandate to do this. If the
Liberal government still understands the meaning of the word
democracy, it has only one option open, that of abandoning the
establishment of the Canada customs and revenue agency. I
realize it is not an easy decision.
1610
It is not easy, because I suspect that the Liberals have
probably already promised some of their friends in the private
sector, no doubt themselves poor millionaires too, that the new
structure would benefit them. Today, however, they have to turn
to their friends and say they cannot keep their word.
They cannot keep their word because they had already given their
word to the people of Quebec and Canada that they would act in
their interest. The Canada customs and revenue agency is not in
their interest.
They cannot keep their word because they had already given their
word during the election campaign to the officials of the
department of revenue, including those in my riding, that they
need not worry about their jobs under a Liberal government.
If the government of Jean Chrétien has any honour left, it must
keep the promise it gave to the people of Quebec and Canada and
kill its proposed Canada customs and revenue agency.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.
I listened to the member who just spoke on behalf of the Bloc. I
was not sure that the speech had anything to do with the revenue
bill, but I cannot stand in this place and allow certain comments
that were made not to be challenged.
It does not seem to matter to members opposite from time to time
if statements are based on fact or on someone's personal
interpretation of a particular committee report. The member went
on at some length about the report of the subcommittee on sports
in Canada. The member should read that report as I have done.
Nowhere in that report will a reference to tax breaks for
millionaire athletes be found. I am absolutely confident that
members of the government would be opposed to such a thing.
I wonder what the member might say to the people of Quebec City
who lost their hockey team due to its inability to compete in the
marketplace known as the National Hockey League in North America.
I wonder what the member of the Bloc might say to the fans in
Montreal and right across Canada if the Montreal Canadiens were
to find themselves in jeopardy or facing bankruptcy or the
possibility of moving to the United States. It is unimaginable
that a veteran franchise such as the Montreal Canadiens could
simply lose its position in the Canadian sports scene.
All that committee has done is highlight the difficulties faced
in an industry. Sports in Canada is an industry. The Montreal
Canadiens alone pay more in property tax than all franchises in
the United States combined. It is a stunning figure and a
frightening situation.
I refer other members of the House, not the member of the Bloc,
to the minority reports that were appended to the committee
because there was a lot of support for amateur sports in the
country. I just wanted to correct the record in that regard.
I have heard members say in this place that somehow the revenue
bill was being rushed through the House. I did a bit of
research. In the throne speech of February 1996 an announcement
was made by the government of its intention to introduce this
bill. On June 4 the bill was introduced for first reading and on
October 2 it received second reading. It was then sent to
committee where witnesses from across Canada were interviewed
about the impact that they thought the bill might have.
Here we are at December 8 and we are talking about third reading
of the bill.
1615
To suggest that the bill has been given short shrift or in some
way rammed through parliament is to simply mislead the Canadian
public. The bill has had debate. It has had input.
I also heard from members opposite, particularly those in the
New Democratic Party, who said that none of the provinces had
bought into the bill and that none of the provinces were prepared
to accept the new agency.
Let me deal first with the province of Quebec. It is
interesting that in committee the other day members opposite put
forth 188 amendments, every one of them calling for a particular
clause to be rejected. How many clauses might hon. members think
are in the bill? There happened to be 188. In their creative
way of thinking, from a province that does not even have its
taxes collected by the federal government but has its own tax
collection regime, they would take exception to the agency for
some unknown reason, simply because it is a government bill and
to oppose is to oppose is to oppose.
Let us talk about quotes from some of the folks whom we have
talked to. The minister of finance for the province of Nova
Scotia, Mr. Don Downe said:
This contract builds on the current strong, co-operative
relationship between Nova Scotia and Revenue Canada and provides
the means for our relationship to evolve under the new agency.
Another five provinces are actively working with Revenue Canada
to determine if this agency could improve the administration of
their programs because they understand that at the end of the day
there is only one taxpayer.
Even Ernie Eves, the Ontario Minister of Finance, in a letter of
September 22 makes the following point:
The CCRA could benefit Ontario taxpayers if it is able to
administer Ontario taxes (both non-harmonized and harmonized)—
That is a very interesting point, because the Conservatives in
Ontario have been very staunchly opposed to any kind of
harmonization, to any kind of attempt to bring collection
agencies together and perhaps establish one base tax that could
be collected for all.
Why should we fight over who collects it? It gets transferred
down to the provinces. Possibly it could be collected in a
harmonized negotiated atmosphere and transferred up. Up to this
point Mr. Eves and his government have refused to even discuss
it. He goes on in his letter:
Many think that there is some kind of coalition between the
Ontario Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the drive to
unite the right. I want to take members a little farther west on
that point, if I might, to a proud Albertan, the provincial
treasurer of Alberta, Mr. Stockwell Day. We have seen Mr. Day in
negotiations with the Leader of the Opposition and with others on
the unite the right drive. We have seen Tony Clement, the
minister of transportation for Ontario, joining that somewhat
crowded king size bed. Maybe it is queen size, I am not sure. It
is not that big, but they are attempting to expand it. I am sure
members get my point.
The reason they are all doing this, they try to purport, is to
somehow offer a magical solution to the Liberals. Are you
signalling victory or two minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker? Poll
after poll indicates that Canadians believe in the government,
believe in the things we are doing. We have incredible support
for our Prime Minister and for the policies of the government.
Let me share the comments of Stockwell Day:
It's good to see Revenue Canada becoming more open to provincial
input in its approach to collecting provincial taxes, as it moves
toward its new status as a federal crown agency. We're always
willing to explore possibilities that would benefit our taxpayers
as well as safeguard the public purse.
It appears that as we speak, unfolding before us at this very
moment, the wheels on the unite the right wagon are falling off.
1620
It appears that Mr. Day sees the benefits of an agency that
could streamline administration, that could be more open and
accessible to Canadians, that could benefit every taxpayer at the
provincial and the federal level.
Frankly I congratulate him for not confusing the politics of
extremism on the right with—I hate to use word common sense
because Mr. Harris seems to think he owns it—the common sense of
putting in place an agency that will be accountable to
parliament, where there will be a mandatory five year review of
the agency and an opportunity at the public accounts committee to
review it even more often. It will be an agency that will be
accountable to the minister, accountable to parliamentarians,
accountable to provincial treasurers and ministries across the
land. It is an agency whose time has come.
As we hear people talk about rationalization and downsizing, we
have an opportunity to do something that will save taxpayers'
money and benefit all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind the hon. member for Mississauga West that,
if this is not trying to ram a bill through, I do not know what
it is. We were gagged, quite simply, when the witnesses came
before the committee.
He says there was great participation. Yes, 18 organizations
plus some 50 individuals, who came to tell us that there was no
unanimity on Bill C-43.
I ask the hon. member for Mississauga West what his basis is for
making such false statements.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I
understood the question, but I will try to answer what I perceive
might be the question, that is on what I base my remarks.
I base my remarks on quotes that are available from people who
have presented their concerns and their support for the bill. Mr.
Peter O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
said:
Robert Spindler of Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
said:
My understanding, and I think the way a lot of businesses
operate, is if you have an attractive idea, an attractive
structure and attractive concept that makes good sense, over time
there can be buy-in.
I would not deny there are people who are opposed, most of them
fueled by members of the opposition who simply find it their duty
to oppose anything regardless of the efficacy or the quality of
the idea because they see that as simply their role. My opinions
are based on facts from independent Canadians representing people
right across Canada who think this is a darn good idea.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. windbag opposite is a johnny-come-lately to this issue.
He should know, as I have followed the issue—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is not beyond the
scope of members present to use colourful adjectives other than
the one used in this instance.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I have corresponded with
all 10 provincial finance ministers. I have spoken with several
of them on this subject. The vast majority of provinces have
made no indication that they will participate in this program.
They could contract with Revenue Canada now to do the kind of
things that are proposed under the agency. There is really no
difference.
The hon. member said that the opposition always opposes for the
sake of opposing. Perhaps he could tell me why he rose in his
place last night with his colleagues and voted against an
opposition amendment to ensure that the act would be in force to
include the principles of impartiality and fairness for
taxpayers.
Is he against impartiality and fairness? Why did he vote
against the amendment? Why does he not rise in his place and
support the entrenchment of a taxpayers bill of rights which
would ensure no diminishment of accountability under the bill but
that taxpayers rights to due process and to being treated
innocent until proven guilty are protected in the legislative
framework of parliament.
1625
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I have
been called worse by better so I do not take it seriously at all.
The bill provides an opportunity for impartiality. More
important, the member opposite should recognize that it provides
for an opportunity for parliament to have control over the
agency, both through the public accounts committee and through
the required five year reporting system that will come into
effect. We know it is extremely important, representing
Canadians from right across Canada, that opportunity exists.
It is a fundamentally sound bill. I doubt if it would come as a
great surprise in my heart or my mind not to find an offer of
support for the motion put by the opposition member, but I think
he should support the bill.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon.
member for Québec, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, APEC Summit.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that earlier sign was a victory sign because I heard a lot
of winning arguments by the member for Mississauga West.
We are looking at the demands of Canadians for better, more
responsive and streamlined tax, customs and trade administration
services. It is one of the most important reasons for Revenue
Canada's move to a departmental agency status. It is a sign of
the times, the times of economic expansion, the times of
increased demand for tax, customs and trade services, and the
times of a marked increase in new jobs since 1993 which has
resulted in a marked increase in tax filers. Canada's exports
are at an all time high.
[Translation]
In 1997 alone, actual total exports increased 8.6%. The upturn
in the domestic economy stimulates imports. This will not be a
fleeting trend; the volume of activities will continue to
increase.
[English]
The commitment to improve client service will not change. Over
the years resources at Revenue Canada have remained relatively
stable during this period of economic expansion and sharp
increases in business volumes.
Revenue Canada has done its very best to accommodate the new
demand. As a government department Revenue Canada has to submit
to across the board federal government rules and guidelines which
apply to some 80 other government departments and agencies, many
entirely dissimilar from the work done by Revenue Canada. These
government-wide rules often fail to meet the specific needs of
the unique functions the department undertakes.
Revenue Canada has exhausted its internal operating
efficiencies. There are few gains that can be made through this
approach. That work has been done. There is new work to be
undertaken. We must forge ahead and create a new structure, a
new framework that will provide opportunities and generate new
efficiencies.
[Translation]
It is time for the proposed new Canada customs and revenue
agency. It is time for this unique, Canadian model that
combines the strengths of both the public and private sectors,
while remaining fully accountable to parliament and the Canadian
public—while remaining, proudly, in the federal public service.
In developing the Canada customs and revenue agency, Revenue
Canada has been sensitive to the fact that tax, customs, and
trade administration affects the lives and livelihoods of
Canadians.
[English]
Revenue Canada's clients insist on better services while at the
same time they must be dealt with fairly with their rights fully
protected. The design of the new agency makes certain the
essential checks and balances which govern its activities are in
place and ensures that the accountability as presently stipulated
under Revenue Canada has been maintained.
The enforcement powers of the new agency will be the same as
those currently provided to Revenue Canada through such
legislation as the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act and the Excise
Act.
1630
The minister will still be fully accountable to parliament and
the public for the administration and enforcement of specific
legislation. Revenue administration is not being devolved to
anyone.
The minister will still have the authority to answer questions
in this House. The minister will ensure that the agency is
providing appropriate services to Canadians.
I can assure members that a taxpayer's personal information will
remain confidential. It will continue to be protected under the
agency just as it is currently with Revenue Canada. The
authorities governing its confidentiality are clearly set out in
program legislation such as the Income Tax Act and they will not,
I repeat, not be changed by this bill.
[Translation]
Bill C-43 will permit the agency to offer new and better services
to the provinces and territories. Some have said that this bill
is all about harmonization. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker.
Revenue Canada can already administer harmonized taxes.
[English]
What is new is that the proposed Canada customs and revenue
agency will also be able to collect non-harmonized taxes for the
provinces, something Revenue Canada is unable to do now.
The new agency will be able to expand the potential for single
window tax collection with considerable savings for businesses
and individual Canadians. Is that not what alternative service
delivery is all about?
It is about greater co-ordination between the federal,
provincial and territorial governments. A simplified tax
administration for Canadians will reduce costly overlap and
duplication between governments.
The move to agency status will also permit the adoption of a
more client oriented approach. This will increase operational
flexibility in the management of internal resources.
As Mr. Blair Nixon pointed out when he appeared before the House
of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on November 24 on behalf
of both the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Tax
Foundation:
The move to the agency should provide more flexibility to deal
with personnel issues, a fundamental aspect, we think, of the
organization. That flexibility should provide a better position
to the agency to hire, train and retain good personnel. The
agency needs to bolster its ranks with good people in order to
provide better service to taxpayers, which we understand is one
of the fundamental thrusts of the agency.
[Translation]
The bill before the House today will allow the proposed agency
to tailor its human resources and administrative functions to
meet the needs of its clients—as well as those of its employees.
This will mean better service—to provinces and territories, to
businesses, and to Canadian taxpayers.
[English]
Doing something better is not an expansion of power but an
extension of service, service to Canadians, service to
businesses, and service to the provinces and territories. Better
service means savings in time and money, savings in compliance
costs for businesses and savings in administrative costs for
governments.
The intent of Bill C-43 is to establish a framework with all the
checks and balances for a superior agency, a winning proposal for
government and Canadians alike.
I encourage all members in this House to support this important
piece of legislation.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order.
I just returned from the House leaders' meeting and I think you
will find there is unanimous consent for the following two
motions:
That the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be
authorized to travel to Australia and New Zealand from February
18 to March 3, 1999 to meet with parliamentarians and government
officials in Canberra and Wellington, and to attend the Fifth
Biennial Conference of the Australasian Council of Public
Accounts Committees to be held in Perth, Western Australia, from
February 21 to February 23, 1999.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will take this in
two parts. Does the House give its unanimous consent to present
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1635
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I do assure you and other
members that all House leaders were in attendance at the meeting
I just returned from. I will try with the second motion.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask you to seek unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to St. John's,
Newfoundland, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Windsor,
Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Vancouver and
Whitehorse from February 21, 1999 to February 26, 1999 in order
to gather information on its study of a Canadian cultural policy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Once again, we will
take this in two steps to have the unanimous consent to present
the motion and then to accept the motion.
Does the House give its unanimous consent to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an
act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to
amend and repeal other Acts as a consequence, be read the third
time and passed.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
independent customs and revenue agency will help the revenue
minister to shirk doing his duty to protect taxpayers from any
abuse of authority.
We know that the government is in the habit of hiding behind
independent agencies to say that no, the government is not to
blame for this or for that, the agencies are.
Is the establishment of an agency to carry out, for the
government, basic duties like enforcing the Income Tax Act
supposed to reassure taxpayers?
Does the hon. member not believe that privatizing the revenue
department is just another way to appoint friends of the
government to all the positions available on the agency's board
of management?
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc
Quebecois for her comments.
This initiative does not mean we are privatizing Revenue Canada.
On the contrary, there will be more accountability with this new
bill. At the present time, there are five accountability
measures at Revenue Canada. This bill will add three more.
Revenue Canada has legislation on taxpayers' rights, and it will
be maintained with this bill. It deals with all Canadians who
have tax related problems. Therefore, this bill improves the
situation for Canadians.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I understood well. The member said
the minister will still be accountable for tax legislation to
his peers in the House, that he will still be required to answer
any questions parliamentarians will want to ask.
If the minister is still responsible and has to answer the
questions, what is the use of changing the law?
1640
Is it to harmonize federal and provincial tax laws? There is no
need to estaablish a superagency to do that. It can be done with
the provinces, as shown by the harmonization of the GST and the
PST in Quebec.
I do not know if that is what they want to do. But what is
behind all this—and I would like the member to confirm this if
he can—is that the minister will no longer be the employer of
the tax collectors who now work for Revenue Canada and
collection agencies. The bill says that the agency will be their
employer. Will the minister end up with his chauffeur as his
sole employee? Is that what it means? Do we still need to have a
minister in that case?
Is the government looking to save money at the expense of public
servants? It seems to me that this is an anti-union bill. The
government is cutting the federal public service by 20%.
Is that the purpose of this bill? If the member has not
understood, he can tell us and then again ask the minister the
question.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member
for his comments.
[English]
I think the member opposite has missed the intent of the new
agency. If I might say, it is the typical paranoia from the Bloc
Quebecois. It is always a plot to look at harmonizing Quebec
taxes.
As my colleague from Mississauga West pointed out earlier, the
Quebec government already has its own unique or separate income
tax system.
What this new agency will do is it will provide more
flexibility. It will eliminate redundancy, overlap and
duplication. It will be one-stop shopping for businesses. It
will provide efficiencies for government. The bill is about
achieving certain economies and efficiencies for the benefit of
all Canadians.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be
authorized to travel to Australia and New Zealand from February
18 to March 3, 1999 to meet with parliamentarians and government
officials in Canberra and Wellington, and to attend the Fifth
Biennial Conference of the Australasian Council of Public
Accounts Committees to be held in Perth, Western Australian from
February 21 to 23, 1999.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the deputy
government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an
act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to
amend and repeal other Acts as a consequence, be read the third
time and passed.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
found it interesting to listen to the members who spoke on Bill
C-43, especially the government members. It is quite clear they
are avoiding telling the truth.
I am a former member of the Public Service Alliance. I worked
for Parks Canada, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
Department of Human Resources Development. I am well aware of
the gimmicks the government uses to get rid of a large number of
public servants.
It was announced 45,000 to 55,000 jobs were going to be cut
across the country. Services will go with the jobs. The
government has found a way to eliminate 40,000 jobs. It has
decided to establish a new agency. By so doing it will also
break the unions.
I suggest it is going to have a very difficult time getting rid
of these 40,000 employees because Revenue Canada unionized
workers are very well organized.
And they are not pleased. I met with their union
representatives. They do not want this agency. They are tired of
the insecurity. The purpose of the agency is once again to
create insecurity among workers, who do not know whether or not
they will have a job two to three years down the road.
1645
The member opposite talked earlier about ASD, alternate service
delivery, and he painted a very rosy picture. But what ASD is
all about is clearly cutting salaries, benefits, and eventually
laying off people. This is not complicated. We already saw this
with Parks Canada, which is going to become an agency; workers
are worried because they do not know where they will be two
years from now, whether or not they will have a job, and what
kind of salary they will get.
Park visitors can see they are worried because the new policy is
to make a profit at any cost. The same will happen with the
Canada customs and revenue agency.
They say they will be collecting provincial and municipal taxes,
and that it will be more efficient that way. But the hon. member
did not tell us how many jobs will be cut.
Back home, in Bouctouche, the employment centre has been closed.
In the Department of Human Resources Development alone, 5,000
jobs have been cut. Because of that, some employment centres and
their services have disappeared. People have to travel to
Richibucto, Shediac, or Moncton. Many do not go there, because a
large number of them cannot afford it. So they have to do
without those services.
That is what happens with those agencies and the decisions the
Liberal government makes. They never stop slashing and cutting.
And then they brag about their job creation record.
However, they should not forget to tell us new jobs are part
time jobs, low wage jobs without benefits, that make families
even poorer.
Recently, the UN stated the same thing we have been saying for
years. The Liberal government tells us these findings are based
on the statistics for 1995. In that case, we would not like to
see the statistics for 1998, because they are even worse.
Canadians will not buy the argument that the statistics the UN
analysed are for 1995.
How many people qualify for EI benefits today, compared to 1995?
How many more children live in poverty, compared to 1995? I
would be ashamed to say these are the figures for 1995. They
would be better off say they are the figures for 1998. One
wonders sometimes who is advising those members.
I am here today to say that we know the truth. We know that
people are living in poverty. We organised a nice dinner for
children who will not have any Christmas, as was already
mentioned in the House. Why? Because these children are poor.
We have to help them, we have to share our wealth. It is too
bad that there are not more members on the government side who
feel like sharing their wealth. But they only feel for banks
and millionaires.
When the government talks about cutting taxes, it does not mean
that poor people will pay less. No, no. Millionaires will
benefit and the gap between rich and poor will grow even larger.
And then the Minister of Finance gets up and brags about doing
this and that. Yet, this same government refuses to come to New
Brunswick and look at the situation it created with its cuts and
its new rules, regulations and legislation.
The Minister of Human Resources Development fears New Brunswick
more than the devil fears holy water, as we say in our neck of
the woods. He does not even come close to New Brunswick,
because he does not want to face what he has created. The Prime
Minister who, at one time, was elected in my riding no longer
has the courage to come and visit us.
The day will come when they have to face the music, because, as
members know, chickens always come home to roost. If the
government will not answer questions here, it will have to
answer them some day.
Let us talk about the 40,000 employees who feel insecure today.
Let us talk about the centralization of authority. Let us talk
about the jobs we are going to lose. We do not hear anything on
that score.
Those who do lose their jobs, what will they find? Part time
jobs, insecure jobs, jobs that will leave them even poorer than
they were? This is the mandate of the Liberal governement.
1650
We talk about taxes, we even hear members of the Progressive
Conservative Party say that we ought to lower taxes. But who
introduced the GST? Earlier, a Liberal member said that the
opposition was there to criticize. Yet, I remember the Liberal
Party promised to abolish the GST.
What happened in New Brunswick? We got a 15% tax on everything.
We got a tax increase on electricity, heating and children's
clothing. We do not need an agency to collect these taxes
because it is already being done in New Brunswick. If they use
this as an excuse, it will not wash, because taxes are already
being collected. We already pay a 15% tax.
It is true that we got rid of the GST, but what we got in return
is even worse. Frank McKenna was very happy to have done it. I
think he got a little bonus at the time.
When an agency is set up, we have to look at the facts. This is
just another way to reduce job security. It is just another way
to cut jobs and again, it is always the same people who are
caught in the middle, those who work all year around, the middle
income earners, who end up getting poorer and poorer. Some
things never change.
It is no different when we talk about lowering taxes. The EI
premiums were reduced by 15 cents for every $100. I found that
so ridiculous. Opposition parties felt the premiums should have
been reduced even further. Today, the Reform Party told the
House that employees could have saved about $300 a year.
Yes, but how much money was taken from our communities because
people no longer get their employment insurance cheque? Is this
so hard to understand?
I am not an economist or a mathematician, but the government
took $20 billion from the New Brunswick economy because it made
the system too complicated for people to receive employment
insurance benefits. Is this not cutting into the economy? Is
this not causing problems? Is this not causing problems for our
small and medium size businesses?
There is no longer any money in circulation. Thousands of people
received employment insurance cheques and put all that money
into their community. The money of the unemployed was not going
into RRSPs; they need it to live on.
Some members of parliament are saying that premiums have not
been reduced enough. So now, there will be other reasons to cut
benefits once again. The government will say that its surplus is
not sufficient and will make cuts once again on the back of the
little slave who needs his meagre cheque.
Who benefited from the 15 cent reduction on each $100 of
insurable income? It is the large companies that have thousands
of employees. It is not the small company that has four or five
employees, or only one, or the self-employed who does not pay any
premiums at all. This does not help the small employer.
Sometimes I wonder how people can go to bed at night and sleep,
when we think about the billions of dollars that were taken from
the economy. Almost one billion dollars was taken from the New
Brunswick economy alone. The finance minister always harps on
the $1.7 billion he has given back to poor families.
The government has made nearly one billion dollars worth of cuts
in New Brunswick alone, and it brags about giving back $1,7
billion for the whole country. I know my maths. Believe me, it
has taken away a lot more than it has given back. There is no
doubt about that.
Members should look at what is going on in the hospitals. They
should come and see the waiting lists in New Brunswick. I am
beginning to think that the situation is not the same in all the
provinces. When I go to the doctor here, in Ottawa, I am out of
the clinic within 45 minutes. And I want the people who are
listening to know that these are not special clinics for MPs. In
and out in 45 minutes.
Try to get the same kind of service in New Brunswick. It is just
impossible. We do not have the same level of service. We cannot
see a doctor in less than 45 minutes in New Brunswick.
I am beginning to wonder if we really do have the same level of
service. Maybe there are more complaints coming from Atlantic
Canada, but the fact is we have been neglected. And it is still
going on. The more Liberal governments we have in Atlantic
Canada, the worse it is for these provinces.
There is also the issue of pay equity. The Department of
National Revenue has 40,000 employees.
How many of them have been denied pay equity?
1655
The United Nations said it. A woman from the Philippines said
she would never see the day when she would criticize Canada.
We are supposed to be a model country. We were, but we no longer
are, with the number of calls we receive in our offices from
people who are in utterly hopeless situations. There is Albert
County; the Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to
recognize that some people have to drive one hour to the
employment centre in Moncton to try to find a job, in vain.
To qualify for employment insurance, they need the same number
of hours as someone living in Moncton.
This is unacceptable. The minister is denying these people the
right to qualify for employment insurance; he is denying them
months of EI benefits. Why? Because he has the authority and can
do what he wants. The fact that people are destitute is of no
concern to him.
And now we have our infamous toll highway. Some people will have
to pay $14 to go to their doctor or the hospital. How many
people are going to go without care because they cannot afford
the $14? The government will say they can travel on the other
road, the unsafe one. It is indeed because the alternate route
is not safe that this highway had to be built. However, if you
are poor, if you cannot afford it, take a chance. Take the other
road. This is unconscionable in a country that is supposed to be
the best in the world.
If I recall, we came in 10th not long ago.
The same applies to post-secondary education.
It is exactly the same thing with Bill C-43. The government says
it is a good thing. We have heard that one before. Everything is
good. It is good for a very small group of millionaires.
Everything is good for them.
When the finance minister goes out for dinner, he does not go to
the food bank. He goes out with his banker pals. They pat him on
the shoulder, telling him “Keep up the good work. We are doing
fine”.
Food drives are being organized because Christmas is around the
corner and people have nothing to eat. Children will have no
Christmas presents. Members have the nerve to criticize while I
am talking. They should repeat what they are saying to the
people who line up at the food banks every day to eat. This is
the fastest growing industry in Canada.
They are critical because they refuse to see there is a problem
in this country. That way, they can go to bed and sleep at
night. They are denying reality, but reality will catch up with
them one day. It is breathing down their necks.
I will conclude by saying that Bill C-43 is another attempt to
destroy security, break unions and get rid of good salaries.
Canadians have to realize that service are also on the way out.
Once the employees are gone, so is the service.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to rise and ask the member a
question.
The question is: What does she think of the process of time
allocation being invoked on a bill like this? This is one of
those anti-democratic actions to which I believe the NDP is
opposed. Would the member make a comment on what she thinks of
the process in relation to this bill?
1700
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important
bill and I think we should have all the time that is needed to
make sure, or maybe I should say more time to try to convince the
government that this is a lot of crap, I guess.
Being a new member, I have seen government members being able to
cut things short when something is not suitable to them.
Certainly this is a very important bill and I think we should
have decent time to debate it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we take any
more questions and comments, I cannot let that one slide by
either. We are going to find new adjectives that are more
presentable in the House. It is just not appropriate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I shall try to leave a little time for my Reform
Party colleague, for questions and comments. Since the debate
is to end by 5.15 p.m., I have less than 15 minutes left.
I would like to recap the situation with Bill C-43, giving the
Bloc Quebecois view of it in four points.
First, we feel that this bill is a form of abdication of
political power. Even if the other side of the floor is telling
us that the minister will still be accountable, that is not the
impression we get from reading the bill.
The second point in the powerlessness of the Minister of
National Revenue. I have always thought of him as a nice guy,
but I cannot understand how a minister with 20% of the public
service under him would want to find himself, the day after this
bill passes, with possibly only his chauffeur still working for
him. I wonder how appropriate it is to still have a minister
responsible for this.
What I see as equally serious, given the size of the public
service, and this is the third point the Bloc Quebecois wishes
to bring to the attention of this House, is that establishment
of this new agency appears to be anti-union. They are trying to
do away with 20% of the Canadian public service. That is not
peanuts.
The fourth point is that this bill smacks of centralization.
Not only does the government have trouble keeping its hands in
its own business, it would like, with the agency, to look after
everything to do with taxes. It would like to offer its
services to the provinces. It would even like to offer its
services to municipalities. If this is not centralization, I
would ask the other side of the House to give me another term
for it, one that is acceptable, of course.
With the four points I have just raised, if it is true that this
is an abdication of political power or if it is not true, in
other words if the government will in fact continue to be
responsible under the Income Tax Act, and accountable to the
House for responding to questions on the Act, what is the point
of establishing this agency?
1705
We will always question the fact that with the federal
government, primarily when government seats are occupied by
Liberal Party members, the word “modernize” often rhymes with
“privatize”. Where is the government going with this?
Since the Liberals' election in 1993, they have privatized the
railways, tried to privatize the ports and there are even
privatization agreements for the airports. Canada Post
Corporation, which is no longer a government department as such,
was established earlier.
Is the government sending the message that Canada is being put
up for sale piece by piece, that there will just be a group of
subcontractors from whom Canadian taxpayers will have to get
public services and pay for them? The user pay principle is
being hammered home with the imposition of new rates by the
coast guard.
If the government insists on a user pay system, it should allow
all Canadian taxpayers to pool their collective interests and to
start calling for bids themselves. They could draft the bids and
manage their own affairs. Is this where Canada is headed?
The other thing that concerns us with this way of doing things
is that the agency will privatize its operations and will let go
20% of the public servants who are currently working for Revenue
Canada.
Clauses 15, 22 and 25 of the bill, which deal with the
appointment of the directors of that future agency, are of
particular concern to me.
It is provided that 15 directors will be appointed, including a
chairperson and a commissioner. These people will be appointed
by the government, which will have a great opportunity to reward
friends that did not get elected, or that have been waiting to
be compensated for past services. This is worrisome.
What is also worrisome is that these appointees will have the
authority to determine their own salary. Some members opposite
may object that this is not true, that I should just read the
clauses carefully. I will do just that. Clause 30(1) provides,
and I quote:
(a) general administrative policy in the Agency;
(b) the organization of the Agency;
(c) Agency real property as defined in Section 73; and
(d) personnel management, including the determination of the
terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the
Agency.
Are savings going to be made at the expense of frontline
workers, for the benefit of senior managers, who will be
appointed by government people? This is very worrisome.
When it says they have the authority to determine their
conditions of employment, will the future chair or future senior
officers want to compare themselves, in terms of salary or funds
for which they are responsible, to bank presidents? Without
naming any names, this is several times what members here make.
I have no objection to people in a capitalist system making
money, and the structure is such that they are accountable to
their shareholders. In this case, however, I fail to see how
they can be accountable to these shareholders, the people of
Canada.
Usually, it is elected officials who are responsible for how
they manage things. But here we have a superminister sharing
his management authority with a team of 15 friends of the party.
That will be fun.
Who will be answerable to Canadians as shareholders?
1710
Even more amusing are clauses 47 and 49, which provide that the
agency's business plans must be submitted to the Treasury Board
for approval and that the minister must table a summary of the
plan in each House of Parliament in the first fifteen days after
it is approved.
There will be only 15 days in which to do a post-mortem of the
megaprojects and megastructures to which the members across the
way have accustomed us. They are very good at cover-ups. As we
have seen in recent budgets, they are also very good at making
cuts that only kick in somewhere down the line. Is that what we
can expect? I have some serious questions about transparency
and accountability for actions further down the road.
I will digress, if I may. I come from a seaside riding. While
the government wants to part with 20% of its employees—and is
willing to give up all related powers—I find it somewhat shocking
to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage come to the rescue of
rich sports people these past few weeks. She sponsored a bill on
the establishment of marine conservation areas. On the one hand,
the government wants to take apart a department or get rid of
civil servants. On the other hand, through the establishment of
marine conservation areas, a field the minister does not know
the first thing about, it wants to infringe on an area of
provincial jurisdiction. To compound the problem, these marine
conservation areas will have to have on-shore facilities. But who
lives by the sea? Fishers and plant workers.
Last June, the government opposite sneaked in a final proposal
washing its hands of the crisis in the fisheries. The whole mess
is no longer its problem. Now I wonder who is going to stand up
for fishers and plant workers.
On the one hand, it tries to get rid of 20% of its public
servants. On the other, it got rid of 40,000 fishers and plant
workers and wants to establish marine conservation areas. I
cannot for the life of me understand the government's management
style nor its policy thrusts. It blows all over the place. It
twists and turns. Nobody will be able to understand it any more.
Worse yet, no one across the way will be able to answer our
questions.
I wonder about the appropriateness of this bill at a time when,
as my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac said earlier, OECD
statistics show that, far from diminishing, the number of poor
children is on the rise. The government would have us believe
that the elimination of 20% of jobs in the public service will
somehow result in fewer poor in this country.
I am quite willing to believe—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but I have to
interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Hamilton West, on
a point of order.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the remarks of the
hon. member my colleague in the House, but we hope to take care
of a little business before you call us to a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find consent for the
following motion. I move:
That, when the House begins proceedings under Private Members'
Business later this day, and for the duration of the debates on
C-316 and M-300 today, no quorum calls nor dilatory motions shall
be entertained by the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Hamilton West has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to
move a motion. Does the member have the unanimous consent of the
House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1715
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its unanimous consent to accept the motion presented by the hon.
member for Hamilton West?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, an
act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to
amend and repeal other acts as a consequence, be read the third
time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made on Thursday, December 3, 1998, it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the
bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Perron
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 113
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bergeron
| Brien
|
Chan
| Collenette
| Folco
| Guimond
|
Karygiannis
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Marceau
| McWhinney
| Milliken
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Turp
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1750
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-316, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (interest on
students loans), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak on my Bill
C-316. Like my fellow members of the government caucus as well
as other members of parliament, I believe that a well educated,
vibrant workforce is the key to Canada's continued growth and
prosperity and improved standard of living for all.
Of all the riches the country holds, our greatest resource by
far is our people. It is our responsibility as the government of
this great country to provide the people of Canada with an
environment in which they may reach their full potential.
By giving recent graduates a tax credit for interest paid on
student loans, the bill aims to support those Canadians who have
decided to invest not only in themselves but in Canada and in our
common future.
For years businesses have been given a tax credit for interest
paid on business investment loans. This credit was granted based
on the reasoning that moneys invested in business were
contributing back to the Canadian economy.
Bill C-316 builds on this rationale by promoting the concept
that a student's investment in his or her education is an
investment not only in himself or herself but also an investment
in Canada and in our future.
The government adopted the primary tenant of Bill C-316 in the
1998 budget and for that I thank the Prime Minister, the Minister
of Finance and Liberal caucus colleagues for their support. The
main issue which remains is the extension of interest relief to
all student loans.
There are tens of thousands of students across Canada who do not
qualify for government sponsored student loans. For many of
these students the only way to pay for their education is to turn
to private lending institutions for loans.
Bill C-316 would extend the interest relief credit to involve
those loans that have been granted by private lending
institutions for the purposes of financing a student's
post-secondary education.
Education is a high priority for me and I believe for all
members of the House and the government. The growing global
economy is creating work that uses minds, not muscle. In the
early 1990s more than 60% of new jobs were created in the areas
of information and communication technology.
There are few businesses today that do not use a computer
somewhere in their organization. Moreover, Canadians who earn
good salaries and pay taxes contribute to a strong economy. A
strong economy leads to progress and that is why the Liberal
government launched a major assistance program this year, the
Canadian opportunities strategy. This is good economic policy
and good social policy.
The number of jobs requiring a university degree or
post-secondary diploma has increased by 1.3 million since 1990.
On the other hand, the number of jobs available for people with
less education has dropped by 800,000.
These statistics speak for themselves and the government is
paying close attention.
1755
In addition to transfer payments to the provinces to support
post-secondary education, the Liberal government has put in place
several initiatives to help Canadians who want to go to college
or university. Canadians today must excel at the post-secondary
level in order to achieve their personal dreams and to keep
Canada at the head of the developed world, a global leader.
The most important direct federal support for post-secondary
students is the Canada student loans program. Since the Liberal
government brought in this student loan program in 1964, over 34
years ago, 2.7 million students in financial need have received
over $12 billion in loans. Loans amounting to $1.4 billion went
to 360,000 students in 1996 and 1997 alone. The CSLP is helping
380,000 students this year.
The new Canadian opportunities strategy will help hundreds of
thousands of students through a series of measures. The strategy
helps students manage their debt load through tax relief for
interest on student loans. Graduates with long term problems
repaying their loans may be able to reduce their debt or qualify
for extended interest relief for up to 54 months. Through an
improved student loans program the Liberal government is making
it easier for young Canadians to gain the skills and knowledge
essential to building an innovative economy.
In 1994 we announced that we would put an additional $2.5
billion over five years into the Canada student loans program.
More than $1 billion in Canada student loans helped about 300,000
Canadian students go to college or university this year and the
level of commitment is continuing.
We also increased loan limits by more than 50%. They had been
frozen by the last government in 1984. We have brought in more
flexible repayment rules. Under the old rules borrowers had to
begin paying back their student loans six months after graduation
even if they were unemployed or earning very low incomes. Under
the new rules payment can be reduced or deferred for up to an
additional 30 months and the government will pay the interest
during that time.
Furthermore, the government introduced Canada study grants of up
to $3,000 a year. This will help over 25,000 needy students with
children or other dependents. We also doubled the annual limit
on contributions to the registered education savings plan to
$4,000 so that young families could put more money away for their
children's future education. When fully implemented, the budget
proposals of last year will increase federal assistance to
post-secondary education by over $270 million a year.
This bill is more than a simple tax credit. It is about giving
young Canadians the help they need as they enter the workforce,
hope and confidence of a prosperous future and the dream of
possibilities. It is about telling Canadians that when they
choose to invest in their future through education their elected
representatives, we here to represent them, will support them.
Since introducing this bill I have received numerous letters of
support from students, educators, parents, school administrators
from across the country as well as from members of parliament
from all parties, all of whom recognize the importance of
supporting our young people as they make the transition from
classroom to workroom to boardroom.
I call on all members of the House to recognize and acknowledge
the importance of supporting Canada's young people, for they are
the foundation on which Canada's future will be built.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for London North
Centre. We are in favour of Bill C-316 and it is unanimously
that the members of the Bloc Quebecois hail the initiative of
the hon. member for London North Centre.
1800
We must indeed support our young people, as our hon. colleague
said. But that is what we, in Quebec, have been doing since
1964. At the time, the Prime Minister Pearson and Premier Lesage
agreed on the transfer of powers over 24 areas to Quebec. One of
these areas of responsibility was education.
In 1964, we immediately set out to develop in Quebec one of the
best education systems and a grants and bursaries system second
to none in the world today. We are very proud of this system.
That is why we furious and prepared to fight with all we have
got to keep the federal government from laying even a finger on
our school system.
The Government of Quebec should be able to opt out of the
millennium scholarship program with full compensation.
When the people across the way do things that we find are good,
and they do, I make a point of acknowledging them.
Again, I want to tell our colleague from London North Centre
that he can count on our support. We will be voting in favour of
this bill.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to allow
a person who pays interest on a student loan to deduct from
income, for the purposes of determining the tax payable, the full
amount of the interest for 10 years after the first payment of
interest was due. If the student does not use the full deduction
in any year it may be transferred to the person, if any, who
guaranteed or co-signed the loan initially.
It covers loans made under the Canada Student Loans Act, the
Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and certain other loans
for the same purpose not made under the government loan program
for students if they meet the prescribed conditions.
The total cost of this new tax measure may amount to some $800
million. The 17% tax credit included in the measure will cost
about $130 million. It would be a major step in helping
students. Canadian society in general is certainly better off if
we produce more university graduates. A well educated young
population that has marketable skills benefits the individual and
the country.
Canada's academic community is as good as that of any country.
In many areas we are better. However, Canadian students have
been under enormous pressure to bear more of the costs of their
education. The total amount of federal-provincial student loans
jumped from $875 million in 1990 to over $2.1 billion in 1994, a
144% increase in just four years.
As education is an investment, it should not be treated any
differently than other capital investments that receive tax
credits. Allowing student loan deductibility will relieve some
of the pressure resulting from increasing student loan debts,
even though student fees are only a fraction, perhaps just 10%,
of the full cost.
Tax relief in the form of student loan interest deductibility
will reduce student loan default rates. Tax relief for students
may result in more opportunity for young people to apply to
university and community college.
The Liberals have cut $7 billion from transfers to the provinces
for health care and post-secondary education and are replacing it
with $325 million a year from the millennium scholarship fund and
$120 million per year from three other grant programs. The fund
will not ease existing student debts. A grant of $3,000 to 6% of
students will not help in a meaningful way, except in a political
way, as it will be given by a Liberal government. Therefore,
students are supposed to be grateful and vote Liberal.
1805
The bill was introduced before the February 1998 budget. What
is proposed in Bill C-316 goes further than the announcements
contained in the 1998 budget, however. Considering the brain
drain that afflicts certain sectors of our economy, such as
computer science and medicine, this measure could be seen as a
way of keeping recent graduates in Canada. This would protect
Canada's human capital.
A Reform government would help all students by increasing
transfers to the provinces for education, giving broad based tax
relief, creating an income contingent repayment program and
allowing interest deductibility.
We oppose the call for free, universally available undergraduate
university attendance at this point. Some of the unrealistic
student lobby groups have asserted that it is their right to have
free university. They have also added that they want 100%
grants. However, the country just cannot afford it at the
present time.
There was also the operation of personal responsibility to
contribute at least a fraction of the great subsidized benefit
which university students receive.
There are many ways to ensure that demonstrated academic talent
is supported and encouraged. Finances alone should not be a
barrier. Therefore, loans, bursaries, scholarships and payment
plans attached to income tax forms to truly address the ability
to pay is the way to go at the present point in the nation's
finances.
The bill is a good idea and should be supported not just by
Reformers, but by all members of the House.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in support of
Bill C-316, which has been introduced by the member for London
North Centre.
I would like to congratulate the member for bringing forward
this proposal which will help provide some relief to students who
are in very dire straits in Canada.
As we have heard, the purpose of this bill is to allow a person
who pays interest on a student loan to deduct from income, for
the purposes of determining tax payable, the full amount of the
interest for 10 years after the first payment of interest was
due. If the student does not use the full deduction in any year
it may be transferred to the person, if any, who guaranteed or
co-signed the loan initially.
I believe that the member's rush now for bringing forward this
bill is because business owners are permitted to deduct interest
paid on business investment loans. Using that provision as a
precedent, Bill C-316 acknowledges the role of student loans as
investments which deserve the same consideration.
Certainly from that point of view, in terms of the motivation of
the member, we would support this bill coming forward. However, I
think it also needs to be pointed out that this particular bill
is a bit like treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
The fact is that tax relief, while always welcome, does nothing
to ease the fact that students must cough up increasingly high
tuition fees in order to make it through post-secondary
education.
This bill, although providing some relief, does nothing to
address the fact that post-secondary education is becoming
increasingly inaccessible to more and more students, particularly
those with low and moderate incomes.
Unfortunately it does nothing to address the fact that over the
last decade tuition fees have climbed a whopping 240%. Even in
the last year alone tuition fees rose 12% nationally, which is
seven times the rate of inflation.
That should give us some idea of the severe difficulties that
students are facing today in trying to pay their tuition and in
making it through school. It is simply an astounding fact that
tuition fees are now seven times higher than the rate of
inflation.
Nor does this bill, unfortunately, expunge the massive debts
that students are graduating with, which now average $25,000.
That figure is up from the average of $13,000 when the Liberals
took power in 1993.
We are talking about a bill that would amend the Income Tax Act.
The bottom line is that the reason we have a crisis in
post-secondary education is because we have seen a retreat in
public funding. We have seen the federal government slash funds
from post-secondary education by $3 billion since 1995. As well,
$4 billion has been cut from training.
1810
If we really want to examine what is facing students in Canada
today, why they are having such a hard time and why more and more
students are graduating into poverty, we have to look to federal
public policy from this Liberal government which basically has
withdrawn its support to the provinces in transfer payments.
Students are paying the price for that. That needs to be said.
While I support the member in his efforts to provide some
relief, I also hope that the member would, within his own caucus
and within his own government, rethink and examine the policies
that have been put into place.
One of the changes in the last budget that was particularly
cynical which affected students was the change in the bankruptcy
laws. That has really had a very dramatic impact on students.
It used to be that a student could declare bankruptcy two years
after completing studies. It should be pointed out that most
students do not declare bankruptcy. Most students will do
everything they can to pay off their Canada student loan. In
actual fact, the new law passed by the Liberal government now
says that a student cannot declare bankruptcy until 10 years
after completing studies or finishing school. That virtually
rules out that option.
I do not know about other members of the House, but I have heard
horror stories from students about how they are harassed by
collection agencies at 7 a.m or 8 a.m. because they defaulted on
a payment.
I am glad the member brought this forward. However, we have to
get the real picture of the things that have been done by the
government, such as changing the bankruptcy law and slashing
public funding to post-secondary education, which have made the
lot of students much worse.
Liberal members often point to the millennium fund as the
panacea and the cure-all for the difficulties that face students.
We should recognize that the millennium fund, which does not even
begin until 2000, is just a drop in the bucket when one compares
it to what actually has been taken out of public funding.
New Democrats are not about to let the federal government forget
about the student debt crisis. Instead of creating a scholarship
program which duplicates existing programs and does nothing to
help students in need, we have called on the federal government
to take steps that would reduce student debt.
We have demanded of the government that we end the privatization
of Canada student loans, that we end the harassment that students
have to go through.
We have also called on the government, along with the provinces,
to begin to restore the billions of dollars that have been cut
from post-secondary education. If we really are genuine about
wanting to assist students we have to begin at that point. There
has to be a recognition of what the erosion of public funding has
done to post-secondary education.
I would also suggest that we should follow the leadership of my
province of British Columbia which has had a tuition freeze for
three years in a row. That is something that needs to be done on
a national basis.
If the federal government really wants to show leadership for
students and show that it cares about what happens to students,
then the minister should be convening a meeting of provincial
education ministers, putting some bucks back on the table and
saying “We are going to help students by enacting a national
tuition freeze”.
That would be the first step in restoring confidence in what
really has been a first class system in Canada of public
education, which now is going down the slippery slope to
privatization.
The NDP would change the millennium fund to make it the first
step of a national grant program to assist first and second year
students.
Probably most important, we would begin by saying that
accessibility has to be a national standard that is brought
forward by the federal government with the co-operation of the
provinces so that we can say to young Canadians “You do have a
future. You do have accessibility and you are not going to come
out of post-secondary education with a massive debt around your
neck”. That is what the reality is now.
I have talked to students who have a $60,000 debt.
They are single parents who are trying to pay off that debt and
they have not started working yet. It is an appalling situation.
1815
In closing, this is a good measure that has been brought
forward, but I urge the member to go back to his caucus and say
that the government must rethink its priorities and that if they
support public education it needs public funding and confidence
to make sure students are not facing the severe situation they
face.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member for London North Centre for bringing
forth the bill. Obviously it would be an improvement to the
student loan system of today. However, I have fully concur and
agree with the member from British Columbia who just spoke.
Oftentimes the Liberal government takes away so much and gives
back a tiny bit in its place, which does not solve the problem at
all.
The real problem with post-secondary education is the cash
transfers under the Canadian Health and Social Transfer Act. In
1995-96, $16.6 billion were transferred to the provinces to give
social services and in particular post-secondary educational
services to all young people. In 1997-98 Canadian health and
social transfers to the provinces were $10.4 billion, or a loss
of $6.2 billion to the provinces primarily in a fund directed
toward social services and in particular post-secondary
education.
If we combine that problem with tremendous cuts in transfer
payments to the provinces, a tremendously high unemployment rate
for young people, twice the national average consistently for the
last 10 years, we realize the problem that many of our young
students face.
The bill we are discussing is a good one. It is an improvement.
Giving a tax break or a tax incentive to somebody who is heavily
in debt, to the tune of $50,000 or $60,000 after getting an
education, is good, but it is not the solution that young
Canadians want when they cannot find jobs. Allowing students to
write off some of their interest under student debt is good, but
again it is not the solution that young Canadians want.
First and foremost young Canadians want an opportunity to access
a good education at a reasonable cost. That is not happening in
Canada today with tuition increases of over 200% in the last
seven or eight years. Education is becoming almost impossible
for many of our young people to access at any cost. Tuition
increases are prohibitive. They are encouraging some of our
young people not to become educated and as a result they will be
faced with tremendous unemployment problems as they go through
their lives.
The bankruptcy problems of young students and the change the
government made to make it more difficult for students to declare
bankruptcy is shameful. It does not serve young Canadians well.
It does not serve students well. It is almost discriminatory
against young people who have worked hard to obtain an education.
If we combine that with some of the out-migration because there
are no job opportunities in Canada, we begin to see a fuller
picture of the problems facing post-secondary students.
Bill C-316 is an improvement. Our caucus will be voting for
this improvement. If nothing else, it at least acknowledges the
fact that an investment in education is an investment for the
benefit of the country. As such students should get a tax break
because they have invested in many ways as businesses do in their
education, which makes Canada a stronger, better and more
productive country.
The bill will allow all students to be treated fairly, those who
can access the Canadian student loan program and those who have
to go through private sources of lending such as banks or other
sources. If they are attending school and require a loan from a
private source, a bank or whatever, at least now students
involved in the post-secondary system will be treated fairly.
In conclusion, we in our caucus will be supporting the bill. It
shows that the government is at least beginning to think in the
right way and look in the direction of post-secondary students,
education and its value into the next millennium.
We do not agree with some of the other government programs, but
in this case the member for London North Centre and his caucus
colleagues have brought forward a bill that makes some sense to
students and will make their lives a bit easier. It will get the
full support of the Conservative caucus.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are here tonight to debate a bill which I consider very
important for Canadian students.
1820
This bill is aimed not only at helping students have access to
post-secondary education by allowing them to deduct their annual
interest payments from their taxable income for a particular
fiscal year, but also at reducing their overall tax burden.
It is worth mentioning that, for the 1997-98 school year, each
student who graduated had a average loan of $25,000 to pay off.
If that loan is paid off over a period of ten years at a 10%
interest rate, the person will pay almost $15,000 in interest
charges alone.
For the majority of students, monthly payments leave very little
money, even for their basic needs.
By amending the Income Tax Act to give students the possibility
of reducing the interest payments on their loans, this bill
recognizes education as an investment in our country's future.
As a government, we firmly believe in the importance of
education for the future of our young Canadians. This
responsibility belongs to us all. For this reason, we have taken
the necessary measures to invest in education. We recognize the
need to remain competitive in a global economy. That means we
need workers who have the required education and training to
provide a skilled workforce. This benefits the Canadian economy,
but it also benefits young workers who, with a good education,
are in a better position to find permanent jobs.
We need only look at the figures to see that education is
increasingly important for the future of our students. The
number of jobs requiring university graduation or college
training has increased by 1.3 million since 1990.
On the other hand, the number of jobs available to individuals
without education has dropped by more than 800,000. These
figures clearly show the need to promote education among young
people.
As a government, we put a lot of our efforts into measures
promoting education. In September 1997, we proposed a strategy
to give young people scholarships for the new millennium.
Regardless of the objections put forward, the essence of these
initiatives is that the scholarships will give students
additional funds to help with the cost of their education.
As a Quebecker, I am proud to be part of a government that
invests in such projects.
Starting in 2000, this money will provide thousands of
scholarships annually to help young Canadians with low and
modest incomes to continue their college and university
education. This fund will be managed by an institution at arm's
length from the government and will further eliminate barriers
to education while rewarding scholastic excellence. Through
this program, even more young Canadians will have the skills
necessary to develop in a society increasingly focussed on
information and new technologies.
The scholarships will support a wide variety of knowledge
acquisition and skills development programs. They will be
available to Canadians of all ages studying either full or part
time at universities, community colleges, CEGEPs or
state-supported technical facilities.
This new initiative is in addition to the numerous measures
announced in the 1997 budget to reduce the barriers to
education. For example, the amount on which post-secondary
education credits are calculated has already been raised from
$100 to $150 a month, and will go to $200 after January 1998.
In addition, the education tax credit has been expanded to
include additional charges by the universities, such as those
for library and other services.
By virtue of these changes, a student who received combined
federal and provincial assistance of $900 in 1995 got $1,200 in
1998.
In order to help parents put more money aside for their
children's education, the maximum annual contribution to a
registered education savings plan was doubled to $4,000. Now
parents will also be able to transfer funds from an RESP to an
RRSP if they have unused amounts.
1825
Graduates who are unable to pay back their loans may, since
August 1, 1997, defer their payments for 30 months, after the
standard six-month period. This change also gives new graduates
the time to get more solidly established in the work force
before starting to pay off their loans.
In today's society, we know that having a diploma does not
immediately open doors to the work force. Experience is also an
essential requirement. This is a reality with which young
people in search of work are very familiar.
We know that it is not always easy to get that work experience,
particularly in our field of study. Managers want employees who
are qualified, educated and experienced.
The Liberal government is promoting concerted efforts to help
young people gain the knowledge and know-how necessary to meet
labour market requirements. This is why the Liberal government
also included in its youth employment strategy initiatives that
will allow young Canadians to get their first work experience.
In February 1997, the Liberal government launched the youth
employment strategy, which seeks to help young people make the
transition from school to the labour market by developing
long-term opportunities for meaningful careers.
This initiative provides young people with training and
internship opportunities, job opportunities, and information on
the job market.
For 1998-99, the strategy has a budget of $427 million. It is
estimated that this initiative, which includes the efforts of
the private sector and associated groups, will provide at least
95,000 internship opportunities per year.
For example, the federal public service internship program will
provide a one-year apprenticeship to 3,000 young people. Other
internship programs will also provide a work experience to 8,000
graduates, in growth sectors such as science and technology, the
environment and international trade.
By investing today in helping young Canadians gain the knowledge
and experience necessary to work in an economy dominated by new
technologies, the government is ensuring Canada's future
prosperity.
We are aware that students' indebtedness is a real problem.
This is precisely why the 1998 budget was called the “education
budget” and included major measures to help students manage
their debt. These initiatives include the millennium
scholarships, to which I just referred.
In the last budget, we also introduced the following changes:
tax relief for interest payments on loans; extension of the
interest exempt period; and assistance to reduce the debt.
As for adults who wish to update their skills, we allow them to
take money out of their RRSPs.
All these initiatives show that this government firmly believes
in the importance of education. It is a priority for us. We want
to invest in future generations to ensure the best possible
future for Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wanted
to stand in the House this evening and applaud the member for
London North Centre on his concern for students and for bringing
forward Bill C-316.
Under the existing legislative provisions students have a credit
for tuition fees in an education credit as well as government
support in the form of Canadian and provincial loan and
scholarship programs. However, growing indebtedness has put many
Canadian students and graduates in a difficult situation. That
is why the government supports the spirit of the bill, which is
designed to facilitate repayment of student loans.
The substance of the bill was an integral part of one of the
measures proposed in the 1998 federal budget. The 1998 budget
proposed the introduction of a 17% credit rather than a
deduction. Only loans obtained under the Canada student loan
program and equivalent provincial programs will qualify for the
credit. Although the credit is not transferable, it may if
necessary be carried forward and used in one of the five years
following the year of interest payment.
The government believes that the measure proposed in the 1998
budget meets objectives through reducing the burden of student
debt for taxpayers with limited capacity to repay and limiting
the possible risk of abuse.
1830
The question is often whether it should be a credit or whether
it should be a deduction. It is always an issue of debate when
it comes to these types of issues. It has been argued that a
credit is preferable to a deduction because it provides fair and
equitable support to all taxpayers who are repaying loans. There
are often many accountants who come before committee or many
individuals who are familiar with the tax system who often argue
in favour of a credit rather than a deduction because it is in
the eyes of those individuals fairer and more equitable.
As I said earlier, the government fully supports the initiatives
that will ease the debt burden of students and believes that the
carry forward of unused credits should allow the full use of that
credit.
The government agrees with the substance of Bill C-316 and that
is why the government put forward the proposals it did in the
budget and believes that it will provide targeted relief to the
graduates who need it most. I to congratulate the hon. member for
bringing this forward.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me also to join in this debate on Bill C-316
presented by the member for London North Centre. Like others
this evening, I congratulate him for bringing this bill forward.
The purpose of the bill is to allow those paying off student
loans to deduct the interest on the loan from income for tax
purposes. This bill is an attempt to deal with the increasing
problem of student debt. All across Canada students in
universities and colleges are facing steadily and steeply rising
costs, increases in tuition and increases in other fees.
We know this is not something that can be solved by a single
action or even by a few actions by government. The best way to
deal with debt is to avoid it. I know the member for London
North Centre knows this.
The government is making great efforts to help students avoid
debt. For example, as the member mentioned, the changes in the
RESPs now include grants so that families which are putting money
aside in RESPs now get grants that match to a certain level the
money they are putting aside. So we actually have grants which
help students avoid debt.
The millennium scholarships have been mentioned in a negative
way by the member from the Bloc. In effect the millennium
scholarships are also grants. A substantial number of those
scholarships, $100,000 a year for 10 years starting in 2000, are
in effect grants. They will be based on need. Some will of
course be based on merit but many will be based on need. I cannot
understand how the member from the Bloc can oppose such a
program.
Also to help avoid debt, the government has done its best to
help students find work before they go to college or university,
while they are at college or university and in their years
immediately following graduation. For example, the federal
government's summer job programs have increased greatly since
1994.
Another simple example of helping students find jobs is our
increased support for the research grant councils, the NSERC and
SSHRC and the Medical Research Council. Those moneys which go
into research programs on our campuses rapidly produce jobs for
students while they are in school, helping in labs with
experiments and things like that, and jobs during the summers on
research programs of various types. Those jobs provide money
which helps the students avoid debt, but they also provide
education. One of the greatest ways to learn is to work in jobs
of that type. They also provide the students with this
invaluable experience for when they graduate. They can get a job
which will help them again avoid debt.
In our increased support for science in the federal line
departments it is the same thing. An example, although it is not
a department, is the National Research Council. Its funding goes
to, among other things, helping students find meaningful work in
science projects all across the country.
1835
Another way we have tried to help students avoid debt is by
simply eliminating the deficit and stimulating the economy and
bringing the interest rates down. The unemployment rate in
Canada now is at its lowest level in 10 years.
The renewed national youth strategy was announced yesterday in
the west by the Prime Minister. All those things are designed to
help students find jobs, have money and avoid debt. But when
they are faced with it, which Bill C-316 addresses, the question
is how to cope with it.
As he and others have said, we have already improved the Canada
student loan program. There is a longer period of time after
graduating before students have to start paying off the loans.
We have special measures for students who find exceptional
difficulties after they graduate in dealing with their loans.
There are extra funds, as the member for London North Centre
mentioned, available now for loans and more flexible ways for
paying those moneys back.
Bill C-316 deals with the interest aspect. I agree with the
member for London North Centre that this is an investment on the
student's part. It is exactly like the business owner who gets a
tax benefit on the interest for business investment loans. There
is no difference. The member for London North Centre is right.
I understand there is a similar program in the United States
which has been operating effectively for a number of years. The
Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, which I am sure would
support this measure, has pointed out in its recent brief that it
is not just tuition which is increasing. There are now many
compulsory student ancillary fees. They are not really ancillary
fees anymore. A student cannot go to college or university
without paying these fees anymore than he or she can go without
paying tuition.
The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations urges that student
ancillary fees should also be tax deductible. I am sure that
group of students at least, and many others across the country,
would support the member for London North Centre and Bill C-316
in the first step which is to make the interest on student loans
tax deductible.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say
to the House and to the member who initiated this bill that I
offer my congratulations and on behalf of the House and this side
we are very grateful. We are indebted to the member for bringing
once again the concerns of students and higher education into the
forefront of parliamentary democracy.
We need more initiatives and good ideas to present to young
people, in particular those facing significant student debt
problems. This is one measure which the Department of Finance and
Revenue Canada should be looking at very seriously. It
complements a series of measures which the government has already
implemented, measures which were described in detail by other
members.
This is the type of debate that students are expecting of the
House and the type of good ideas that should come forward.
1840
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I say to all members who have spoken and other members who have
indicated their support for this bill how appreciative and
encouraged I am by their support.
Some people have addressed issues that continue to be a
challenge for governments, federal and provincial, relating to
accessibility and affordability of education. But the fact that
everyone talked about the importance of education is a highlight
in itself. Everyone recognized education is the key to providing
hope and opportunities for our young people. We know the economy
of tomorrow demands an education. We have to look at all
measures. The bill is not perfect.
I introduced Bill C-316 over a year ago and I am happy to see a
lot of the provisions in the bill, including the deductibility of
interest which has for the first time been introduced as changes
to the Income Tax Act in our last budget.
There are a number of initiatives that our government has taken
into account with regard to education. We know that education is
a provincial jurisdiction. We know that the provinces set the
tuition fees. We know that the provinces set the curriculum.
What Canadians have told us is that regardless of the fact that
government is really responsible constitutionally for education,
parents, grandparents and young people themselves want all
governments to work together toward education and ensuring that
every person who wants to get an education is not deprived of
getting that education through colleges or universities or other
institutions by virtue of the fact that they do not have any
money.
Surely we have learned that regardless of where you live,
regardless of your socioeconomic stature, you should be provided
the opportunity of education. We know education leads to a much
more prosperous life. Hence the government's initiatives,
including this bill, hope to address the question of student
indebtedness, accessibility and affordability.
I look forward to the support of the House and the support of
the government to move on the next part of my bill yet to be
addressed by the government, to make sure that all student loans,
not only the ones that are under the Canada student loans
program, are tax deductible to ensure fairness and equity for all
students, not only those who got the money through the Canada
student loans program but who went to their banks, their credit
unions, their trust companies or other financial institutions to
borrow money to further their education and invest in themselves
and in the country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of this item under Private Members' Business has
now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30, the House will now proceed to the
consideration of the next item under Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
* * *
1845
ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGY
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should invest
in a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy, thus: (a)
exploiting the considerable job creation potential of energy
efficiency; (b) encouraging the development of high tech
expertise and export opportunities; and (c) increasing the number
of federally owned buildings (of which there are 50,000)
retrofitted for energy efficiency through the Federal Buildings
Initiative.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to
this motion. I have been quite anxious to introduce and to
encourage this concept of job creation through energy
conservation for quite some time.
I start by saying thank you to the committee for ruling that
this motion be deemed votable. I appreciate that very much. I
understand that this is the only motion of the current batch of
motions in Private Members' Business that was deemed votable in
this round.
The concept is job creation through energy conservation.
Although the motion could be worded better, I look forward to the
opportunity to try to explain what that means.
We believe that the situation does not have to be jobs versus
the environment as is so often the case. I would like to
demonstrate how the situation can be jobs and the environment.
In other words I point to, focus and showcase the enormous job
creation opportunities involved in the energy retrofitting of our
publicly owned buildings.
As a carpenter by trade I spent much of my working life building
megaprojects. I built energy generating stations. For many
years of my career it would be heresy to actually advocate
harvesting units of energy out of the existing system rather than
building new generating systems, whether they were nuclear power
plants or hydroelectric dams. Obviously that was the kind of
work that we looked forward to as tradespeople. Like many
others, I would drive across the country to try to get on one of
those megaprojects.
The original research paper on this subject was done in 1993.
This idea came to fruition because the province of Ontario
cancelled a huge energy purchase from my province of Manitoba.
Thus the Conawapa hydro generating station which was about to be
started had to be cancelled.
Many tradespeople were anxiously and eagerly awaiting Conawapa.
This was something we were looking forward to. Five years of
work for skilled tradespeople was nothing to be sneezed at. When
the province of Ontario cancelled this project we were
devastated.
At that time I was representing the carpenters union in the
province of Manitoba. We had 1,200 members who were anxiously
waiting to build Conawapa. It was something we wanted to do. When
it was cancelled these people literally did not know which way to
turn.
That led us to investigate other ideas. How would we put these
people to work? We commissioned a study on the idea of job
creation through energy conservation. We wanted to find out what
kind of job opportunities there would be in harvesting units of
energy from the existing system through demand side management
techniques rather than building new generating stations.
We were happy to find out that there were as many as seven times
the number of jobs per $1 million invested, or per $1 invested,
in the demand side management of our energy resources than there
were in building new generating stations. This came as a huge
relief. We could now advocate a green environment by being good
environmental stewards without shooting ourselves in the foot.
It would have been heresy not too many years ago for a carpenter
to openly promote this demand side management rather than build
new generating stations.
This is what led us to this conclusion. For many years we have
been pushing this idea. We have been training our people in
anticipation of this idea catching on.
In this motion I point to the federal government owning 50,000
buildings. In its literature it is actually 68,000 building that
the federal government owns and operates. It does have some
measures under way. Nobody is trying to say that the federal
government is doing nothing in this regard. There is the federal
building initiative program. Its goal is to try and conserve
energy within publicly owned buildings.
Of those 68,000 buildings the government owns and operates, the
federal building initiative has only done about 100. With my
motion, we are hoping to make the argument that we could do as
many as a couple of thousand per year and put a whole industry
back to work in this new and laudable concept of demand side
management.
I do not believe that we are taking full advantage of this
opportunity if we are only doing a couple of projects a year. The
federal government's web page is almost a brag sheet about the
federal building initiative. The savings are unbelievable.
1850
One example I pulled off the web site shows that Public Works
and Government Services Canada upgraded a 500,000 square foot
building in Calgary. I believe it was the Harry Hays building.
It resulted in an energy saving of $300,000 per year. That is
for one building. We created a lot of jobs. Obviously the
manufacturing sector benefited as well because there was the
installation of new lighting fixtures, HVAC systems and smart
boilers, et cetera. And we saved $300,000.
We spend over $800 million in energy costs per year to heat,
light and cool all those 68,000 buildings.
In the document “A Brighter Future: Job Creation and Energy
Efficiency in Manitoba”, research shows that we can achieve an
energy savings of as much as 40% by introducing many of the high
tech systems that are currently available. Many of the buildings
the government owns and operates are old and outdated. They were
built in a time when energy was not an issue, when energy was
cheap and plentiful.
I remember the time when Ontario Hydro and Manitoba Hydro ran
ads on TV advocating more use of energy. They wanted us to do
everything electrically, to turn on the lights. We cannot do
that any more.
There is another upside to what I am trying to introduce here.
First is the job creation aspect. As carpenters, that was our
first motivation and the reason we got into this. The second is
the cost saving for the owners of the public buildings of up to
40% of that $800 million a year. The third very good argument is
that we could help to meet our commitments made at Kyoto and Rio
de Janiero to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
The federal building initiatives web page lists not only how
much money it is saving by doing these buildings, it also lists
how many millions of kilos of harmful greenhouse gas emissions it
is saving per year. Some of these buildings are belching out
unbelievable amounts of pollution. If we are going to be
examples to private sector businesses in asking them to clean up
their act and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, surely we
have to start with our own buildings. Surely we can demonstrate
to the private sector that not only is it a good idea and good
environmental stewardship to reduce energy consumption and
eliminate waste, but they can also save a fortune by doing it.
This is why I believe that the federal building initiative, the
program which is already in place and which I am not critical of
at all, should be expanded tenfold. If 100 buildings have been
done so far and there are 68,000 buildings to go, what are we
waiting for? We could put a whole generation of tradespeople back
to work. We could finally get some young people coming into the
skilled trades, which is a real problem.
In the trade that I represent, the average age of a tradesman is
48 years. These guys are looking for a way out by the time they
hit 50. Their knees and backs are gone. Young people are not
choosing the skilled trades as a career option because the work
is so spotty. This project could be a decade long program to get
our buildings up to world class standards.
Besides job creation, obvious cost savings and environmental
stewardship, the fourth benefit is the research and development
that goes into this new high tech field. We could show the
world. We could be the centre of excellence for environmental
stewardship in terms of living in a harsh northern winter climate
and show that it is still possible not to be wasteful in our
energy use. We could export the engineering and research that we
do.
We are already leaders in many aspects. There is the window
industry, for instance. I do not think anybody in the world
makes better windows than our own companies, such as Loewen
windows in Manitoba. They export all over the world. They are
leaders.
There are other aspects of energy retrofitting. We embrace this
concept but one caution I have is there is a real temptation when
one gets involved in energy retrofitting to pick the low hanging
fruit, the easy stuff.
1855
For instance, anybody can change the light fixtures to more
energy efficient ballasts. That is okay. It is all very well
and good and one might get a very quick payback on one's
investment. But when one goes to do the building envelope, the
much more expensive things, insulation, windows and doors, the
payback might take eight years or so. Average the two together
and there might be a three or four year payback on one's
investment. Most property owners will tolerate that. But if one
picks the low hanging fruit and only does the easy stuff and does
not do a comprehensive energy retrofit, it renders the other
details less economical.
The real clinger here, the real thing I hope to excite people
with is that everything I have talked about so far can be done at
absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. Free. Revenue neutral. Not
a penny. Private sector investors are standing by ready, willing
and able to finance all of these retrofits. As many as we can
throw at them, they are happy to underwrite, to pay for and to be
paid back slowly out of the energy savings.
It is called the ESCO industry, energy services contracting.
Many private financial institutions are involved. It is a very
high tech field. Some of the best engineering firms in the world
are doing the energy audits first of all.
All the federal government would have to do is to let us use its
buildings to create jobs, reduce its operating costs and reduce
harmful greenhouse gas emissions. What are we waiting for?
Instead of doing 100 of these projects over the five years that
the federal building initiative has been in place, why are we not
doing 10,000 of them? And why are we not doing outreach to show
those in the private sector how it can be done and that they
should be doing it too?
The whole idea of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions has been
viewed in a very negative light. Here we can point to a very
positive side of it and we can save a fortune.
The province of Manitoba spends $3.2 billion a year on energy.
Every dollar that is not spent on energy can be spent elsewhere
in the economy.
The whole concept of demand side management and energy retrofit
is almost too good to be true. It is such a win-win situation.
Any unit of energy that we harvest from the existing system by
demand side management measures is exactly the same as one
produced in a generating station, except for a couple of
important things. For one thing it is available at one-third the
cost. One-third the cost. The American research shows this. It
is on line immediately. At the same instant one introduces
demand side management measures in a building, the energy is on
line immediately instead of waiting five to 10 years for a
generating station to be built and to get on line. No additional
infrastructure is needed in terms of distribution. And it
creates seven times the number of jobs. One would think that
would be really smart.
Frankly the Americans are way ahead of us on this. The
Bonneville hydro authority has precluded the need to build seven
nuclear power plants just by its demand side management program.
Seven nuclear power plants at $10 billion each. That means it
does not have to borrow that money on the open market. It does
not have to pollute the environment with seven more power plants,
although it is arguable whether they pollute or not. The hydro
authority saw the sense in this and really embraced it
wholeheartedly. The Tennessee Valley hydro authority has similar
statistics.
I do not know why we are so slow on this. We live in a harsh
winter climate where energy costs are a huge issue. Why are we
not showing them how it is done instead of the other way around?
I believe this is possible.
People ask what the motivation is behind this. Frankly I sound
like a broken record. I came to Ottawa in 1993 to pitch this at
an energy efficiency conference at the minister's request. I was
given the energy innovator's award by the then minister of
natural resources. Everybody said that it was fabulous and
great, that it was a public-private partnership.
One source of venture capital for this was union pension funds.
We pulled together a pool of union pension funds dedicated to
this project, $150 million of dedicated capital ready to go. We
said “We have H.H. Angus, one of the best engineering companies
in the world to do the auditing. We have the financiers in
place. Just let us use your buildings”. Nothing. Frankly, it
did not really go very far.
1900
Other financiers are in place and are underwriting the 100
projects done by the FBI but at a much greater mark-up. They
want a much greater rate of return on their investment. Pension
fund investors are happy to have a slow, steady, guaranteed rate
of return, which is what makes it such a good investment for
them.
The study we did called A Brighter Future is in its fourth
printing now. Groups as diverse as the James Bay Cree have been
asking for copies of it because they have a vested interest in
reducing the number of hydro projects given the impact they have
on northern communities. In Manitoba we are still dealing with
the flooding of South Indian Lake.
Building a hydro project on a river is radical intervention in
an ecosystem. We cannot enter into that kind of project lightly.
It is irresponsible not to do everything in our power to look
elsewhere for our energy. Building another generating station
should only be a last resort. Certainly we will build more
generating stations someday, but until we harvest every unit of
energy we can out of the existing system it would be crazy to
borrow $10 billion to build another dam. It is just
irresponsible.
There are many measures in energy retrofitting. Rather than
getting into the complicated technical side of things, I would
like people to think of their own homes. We have known for years
that an energy saving shower head that is worth about $15 can
save $75 a year, but how many of us have actually gone down to
Canadian Tire, paid the fifteen bucks and screwed the shower head
on at home? We are stupid if we do not. We can save $75 a year
for a $15 investment. That is how painfully obvious the measures
are. The measures that need to be taken in buildings like the
Wellington Building are that obvious to engineers. Why do people
not do that?
Now we have taken the last obstacle away. What if one does not
have the $15 to buy the shower head. We can do it free of
charge, at no cost to the government, zippo, free, gratis. There
would be hundreds of thousands of jobs with no charge to the
taxpayer. We could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save 40%
of the $800 million per year that we currently spend on energy to
heat and light 68,000 federal government buildings. What are we
waiting for?
The whole industry is anxiously waiting to get started. The
carpenters union in partnership with contractors across the
country are running courses on energy retrofit construction, new
vapour barrier and insulation systems. They are eagerly awaiting
and anticipating this volume of work. The sheet metal workers
union is specializing in various HVAC systems, the heat
exchangers, the balancing, et cetera. Electricians are one of
the groups that has offered to use some of its union pension
funds because it will create jobs for its members. It is an
ethical investment and it is good work.
There is another advantage to having the work in demand side
management measures rather than in the construction of new
generating stations. When a hydro dam is built all the jobs are
concentrated in some isolated bush camp in the middle of nowhere.
With demand side management measures jobs are spread evenly
throughout every community in the country. Everywhere there is a
publicly owned building is where the jobs will be. There may be
30 jobs to renovate a post office or 30 jobs to renovate a
building on a military base. Those jobs will be more evenly
distributed. It would be a far more equitable type of project.
We could view it as a megaproject but it is spread over the
country. It would put an industry back to work. It would help us
to embrace the idea of public-private partnerships in a very
positive light.
Let the industry pay for it. It just wants to use the
government buildings. It wants to help the government meet its
Kyoto targets and bring down greenhouse gas emissions. Job
creation for energy conservation is an idea whose time has come.
It is long overdue. I welcome the support of other members in
this regard.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting to listen to talk on a motion with which the
government and I concur. It is an excellent motion. We will be
supporting it when it comes time to vote.
I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the
member for Winnipeg Centre. We appreciate the opportunity to
speak about the government's commitment to energy efficiency. We
know we can do more. We thank the member again for bringing it
to everyone's attention.
My comments today will focus on the government's federal
buildings initiative and specifically on the role of Public Works
and Government Services Canada in this initiative.
1905
Energy efficiency makes sense not only for government but for
all Canadian homeowners, drivers, businesses and industry. Energy
efficiency is a winning strategy for reducing greenhouse gases,
for promoting a competitive economy and for creating skills,
sustainable jobs and expertise in high tech fields as was pointed
out.
The federal government must show leadership on this issue. The
best way to do that is through action rather than words. The
Department of Public Works and Government Services is a common
service agency providing a wide range of services to federal
departments and other agencies. The department's mandate
provides the unique opportunity for helping client departments
identify and implement best practices in the areas of
procurement, fleet management, waste management, water
conservation, land use management and energy efficiency.
As a major property owner in Canada with about 350 office
buildings and close to 2,000 lease contracts within Public Works,
it is a unique position to promote and implement energy
management initiatives such as the federal buildings initiative.
If the other 16 departments under the Government of Canada, such
as Health Canada, National Defence and Revenue Canada, are added
we either own or lease 50,468 buildings. We have downsized the
government; maybe their statistics are a little older than mine.
It is impressive to know that over 24 million metres square is
under government control. Also we have 22,793 vehicles which
should be energy efficient as well. The department has been an
active player in the development of this initiative in concert
with Natural Resources Canada.
The federal buildings initiative helps federal departments and
agencies reduce their energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions by improving the energy efficiency of their buildings.
This is achieved through partnerships with the private sector and
at no upfront cost to the taxpayer.
In these times of fiscal restraint it is fair to ask where the
government is finding the money to invest in energy efficiency.
The member opposite talked about trade unions and various other
organizations which have gone into partnership to improve energy
efficiency. The answer is to get a willing third party, an
energy service company to find the money for us.
The company provides the capital, implements the project and
assumes any risk associated with it. Once the project begins to
reduce energy consumption, the energy service company recoups its
investment from the dollar savings. After the company is repaid,
which may take as little as two years, the savings then go to the
taxpayers. This innovative financing strategy effectively means
that energy efficiency retrofits are paid for through the savings
they generate. At the end of the day everyone is a winner. The
federal government gets to upgrade its facilities with modern
equipment and technologies at no new cost.
I must make a brief aside. I have been married to an engineer
for 30 years. His idea of energy efficiency is the new shower
head. He has gone around the House and put a brick in the water
tank of each toilet. I asked what he was doing and he said it
was a very technological advanced way of saving water.
The federal government upgrades its facilities with a little
more finesse, with modern equipment and technologies at no new
cost. Energy management companies generate new business and make
a reasonable return on their investment. Canada increases its
global competitiveness by developing high tech expertise and a
skilled workforce in this field. Energy efficiency upgrades
require a combination of new equipment and systems, technological
expertise and labour. That means more Canadians are being put to
work, as the member opposite pointed out.
Job creation is a priority of the government. The growing
demand for energy efficiency retrofits is helping energy service
companies prosper and generate new jobs. Federal buildings
initiative projects in the federal sector alone have a potential
to create some 20,000 person years of employment.
I would like to share some very impressive figures. I think the
House will be interested in them, not that is it jam packed. To
date the Department of Public Works has signed 27 contracts
representing about $32 million in energy investment by the
private sector. This generates over $5.5 million in annual
energy savings, reducing CO2 emissions by 20,000 tonnes per year,
5.25% from the 1995 levels, and creating in the process 640 jobs.
1910
By the year 2000 public works will have reduced energy
consumption by approximately $12 million per year and have
reduced CO2 levels by 14%. This is an important element in the
government's initial response to meeting the greenhouse gas
commitments made in Kyoto last year.
Through the federal buildings initiative Public Works and
Government Services Canada alone will generate about $60 million
of private sector investment and will create approximately 1,200
jobs in the private sector.
At the same time as the department of public works has been
implementing federal building initiatives projects it has also
proceeded with a unique project in a leased facility. The Place
Vincent Massey building, a complex which is leased by the
government, underwent an impressive $1.4 million in energy
upgrades which will achieve a potential $200,000 annually in
energy cost savings. As a result of this success, public works
is now pursuing federal buildings initiative projects in all the
leased buildings it manages. This means even more savings and
more job creation.
I am pleased to report to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre
that included in the 27 projects public works has already signed,
four contracts for 12 buildings were awarded in the western
region. The member may also be interested to know that four of
these buildings are located in Winnipeg. Overall these contracts
represent an investment of close to $4 million by the private
sector, generating approximately $650,000 of energy savings and
creating 73 jobs.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services is not
alone. Virtually every federal department that owns buildings
has made a commitment to pursue this unique opportunity.
In addition to launching its own projects, public works will
help other departments implement the federal buildings initiative
by undertaking project management on their behalf. I think that
is why the hon. minister we have now was put into his position.
When we were first elected in 1993, he went through and slashed
budgets. Nobody could paint offices. He was a real tough
character. He has been put in charge of this initiative. With
his broad expertise in energy management and wide range of
property management services, public works is well suited to the
task as is its minister.
What is particularly exciting about the federal buildings
initiative is that it can be easily replicated by other levels of
governments and other sectors of the economy. Public works has
been working in partnership with other levels of government,
federal, provincial, territorial and municipal. Let us not
forget that businesses, hospitals, schools and universities can
all use the federal buildings initiative approach too, and many
are. In the end everyone benefits from the federal buildings
initiative: the government, the private sector, the taxpayer and
our environment.
I assure the member for Winnipeg Centre that the federal
buildings initiative program is alive and well. The government
is committed to seeing that the program is implemented whenever
and wherever it makes sense. We welcome the hon. member's
support and I encourage him to follow the federal buildings
initiatives progress as we make our way through the full
inventory of federal buildings.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after
listening to the two previous speakers I cannot for the life of
me understand why every small business and homeowner in the
country is not busy retrofitting their homes for energy
efficiency.
An hon. member: Motherhood and apple pie.
Mr. David Chatters: Yes, the issue is motherhood and
apple pie. It is pretty difficult to say that it is wrong. The
idea has a lot of merit, but I have some concerns with the
member's motion and the federal building initiative it is based
on.
I recognize and I applaud the hon. member who presented the
motion on his demonstrated commitment to the issue and his
efforts in working in energy efficient strategies for many years
in his home province of Manitoba.
While I have some reservations regarding the simplicity of the
motion and the specific program, the FBI the member endorses, I
agree there certainly is a need in the country for his
comprehensive energy efficiency strategy.
The development of long term strategies is one of the
government's demonstrated weaknesses. One has to look for
evidence only to its handling of the Kyoto conference last
December, the issue of gasoline standards in Canada and certainly
the issue of air quality standards in Canada.
1915
The Kyoto example is certainly one of the better examples.
Canadians everywhere were imploring the government to make its
position and strategy known prior to going to Kyoto and this
information was still unavailable right up to the day the
delegation left for the summit. It was apparent that the
government had no clear strategy going into the conference and
was watching for other countries to lead.
Now, a full year later, even after Rio, the government still has
no concrete plans or strategy for the implementation of the
commitments made at Kyoto. Throughout the entire process the
government presented a one-sided argument in an effort to sway
public opinion.
While it was widely agreed that the measures needed to be taken
and some commitments made, Canadians were only given half the
information and were not and have not been invited to participate
in the process. If this government is to develop a comprehensive
energy efficiency strategy, as I believe it should, it must
engage Canadians and open up the process so that Canadians get
the full and honest picture of the benefits and costs.
This leads me to my first concern with this motion. The member
for Winnipeg Centre endorses a retrofitting program called the
federal building initiative. Through this program federal
departments may retrofit federal buildings for greater energy
efficiency. Departments pay the cost of the renovations out of
the savings on energy bills over a negotiated pay-back period.
At first glance this program seems ideal and it certainly does
have merit. It would lead one to say “What is holding us back?
Why are we not going at this full bore?”
However, it is impossible to make a fair assessment when only
half of the information is available and has been presented.
Despite my interest in energy efficiency and my role as the
natural resources critic for the opposition caucus, I have been
able to get only very limited information about this program.
If the program is successful and worthy of Canadian support, why
is more information not being made available? Too often the
government aggressively promotes a program, only to ignore it
after implementation or to provide only information that it deems
to be supportive while it suppresses all other information.
Programs fail to live up to expectations and are therefore kept
from the public spotlight. Canadians deserve more in the way of
feedback and regular updates on the success or failures of
programs that cost millions of taxpayers' dollars.
When I began researching this program I asked for a cost
breakdown of one or two examples of contracts that we might
examine to assess it. I was curious about the size of the profit
margin that would be incentive enough for a private sector energy
service company to enter into a contract in which it is not paid
in full for up to eight years. It was a simple enough request,
but I have not yet received an adequate response.
I also requested complete information on the specific
retrofitting projects identified as the government's success
stories on its natural resources web site which other members
have referred to. Three such examples were listed on the web
page alone with the annual savings reaped by retrofitting each
facility. I was informed that a case study exists about one of
the facilities, but I have yet to see that study in any detail.
We were provided with only three pieces of information. The total
annual savings were $880,000 on that particular project, the
amount of the contract was $6.1 million and the pay-back period
was 7.1 years.
I am hesitant to endorse this program until I have received more
information about it. However, gathering information has
certainly proved to be an onerous task.
I therefore have to question how the public can fairly assess
such a program when information is so difficult to obtain. I can
only assume that they will base their assessment on the
relatively few facts provided by the government, thus making
their judgment on partial information.
This is a prime example of the lack of government transparency
that is to be avoided in the development and implementation of a
comprehensive energy efficiency strategy. The federal building
initiative may be a raging success or it may be an abysmal flop
for all we know from the information we seem to be able to get on
it. Either way there needs to be greater public accountability
through detailed reports showing the progress of the program.
I also have some concerns with the tendering process espoused by
the federal buildings initiative.
Through this program federal departments are given significant
freedom in choosing an energy service company to retrofit their
buildings. Unlike other government contracts, the awarding of a
retrofit contract is not based on the lowest bid. Departments
must take a number of factors into account and may place emphasis
where they see fit. Energy service companies must be chosen from
a qualified bidders list kept by Natural Resources Canada.
1920
These features of the tendering process blow the doors wide open
to patronage, whereby contracts can and likely will be awarded to
friends of the government. To avoid or at least to minimize
patronage it is necessary to open up the tendering process.
That being said, I would like to express my general skepticism
regarding motions and bills introduced by the members of the New
Democratic Party.
As a young man I was searching for a home for my political
ideology and I looked at the NDP philosophy. It certainly
appeals to many Canadians. However, assessing any political
ideology is like the retrofit program: if we only get half the
story it is pretty hard to make an intelligent and informed
decision. Certainly the NDP motion that we are dealing with
today fits into that category. Every Canadian wants to live in a
free society with zero unemployment, a healthy environment with
no poverty. All Canadians share those ideals.
However, I fear that these ideals are in direct conflict with
the realities of the day. That is not to say that we should
abandon those ideals, but we should be working toward the ideal
while recognizing the reality.
Canada does not have a bottomless pit of money to finance
government programs and initiatives. All programs come at a cost
to Canadians. There are no free rides. In many cases the cost
may be worth it, but that does not mean the financial side of the
program can be ignored.
The motion points to job creation and the development of
high-tech expertise through an energy efficiency strategy. It
was my hope upon reading the motion that the member for Winnipeg
Centre was talking about jobs created naturally in the private
sector, not through substantial investment by the federal
government.
Contrary to my hope, in a report prepared by the member, to
which he referred, “A Brighter Future: Energy Efficiency and
Jobs in Manitoba”, the member for Winnipeg Centre advocates
federal funding in a number of areas, but particularly in
training workers for the conservation industry.
The motion also calls for the development of high-tech
expertise. Again I hope that the member for Winnipeg Centre is
talking about encouraging private sector investment in research
and development. However, if he is talking about government
investment, it is very important that Canadians get a good return
on their money.
If high-tech expertise is to be developed through government
investment, that expertise must not be patented and sold by the
private sector with no return to the taxpayers of Canada. I
think the term is intellectual property.
Having expressed all of those reservations, this issue is
motherhood and apple pie and certainly our caucus will be
supporting the motion when it comes to a vote. However, I would
like some of the issues which I brought forward to be addressed.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion
before us focuses more on the economic impact than the
environmental impact of an energy efficiency strategy.
You may have noticed that the motion deals for the most part
with the economic benefits associated with such a strategy.
Basically, it suggests that an energy efficiency strategy would
promote job creation while at the same time boosting export
opportunities.
In that sense, the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre hits the mark. There are undeniable financial
benefits to energy efficiency. In this respect, the experience
of Quebec is a case in point.
As the Quebec minister responsible for natural resources, Guy
Chevrette, recently pointed out, Quebec has successfully
developed a whole economic structure around energy efficiency.
1925
The latest available statistics date back to 1994 but
nevertheless speak volumes. The commercial activities associated
with the manufacturing, distribution and installation of
energy-efficient products brought in nearly $2 billion for Quebec
businesses alone. And these activities created approximately
13,000 jobs for Quebeckers.
We are talking about a real industry here, a business that is
not only booming on domestic markets but also very promising in
terms of export potential. In fact, Quebec's new energy
efficiency agency, about which I will say more in a moment, has
taken a proactive approach to international relations. This
openness to the rest of the world is designed to preserve and
reinforce Quebec's expertise in this respect.
In short, the economic basis for Motion M-300 is absolutely
sound. However, this motion fails to address the environmental
impact, which is unfortunate and rather surprising. More than
ever, energy efficiency appears to be an inescapable way of
meeting international requirements in relation to climate change
and the greenhouse effect. Natural Resources Canada has already
started implementing an energy efficiency strategy.
It is well known that the resources now devoted to energy
efficiency initiatives are modest. Strategic tools are limited
and Natural Resources Canada is focussing primarily on public
awareness. The following question therefore arises: are
existing initiatives well managed and are they having a real and
positive impact on the environment?
In this respect, the 1997 auditor general's report identified
the areas in which Natural Resources Canada's implementation of
its energy efficiency strategy was weak. The auditor general
pointed out that there is no clear link between federal energy
efficiency initiatives, on the one hand, and Canada's
environmental objectives, such as stabilizing green house gas
emissions at 1990 levels, on the other.
Furthermore, the contribution of existing measures to the
attainment of stabilization objectives is not being well
measured. The department's performance data do not allow this
specific input to be measured. Nor do they allow us to measure
the overall success of existing energy efficiency initiatives.
All this was pointed out by the auditor general in 1997.
Motion M-300 proposes that the government invest in a
comprehensive energy efficiency strategy. Logically, the motion
implies that the Government of Canada should launch new
initiatives. Before doing so, however, the federal government
should first ensure that its existing initiatives are having a
positive impact, one that is measurable and verifiable.
The motion before us today does not say which department or
agency should implement the exhaustive strategy proposed.
Caution would dictate better management of existing initiatives
before Natural Resources Canada or the new energy efficiency
office is given responsibility for implementing new initiatives
in this area.
As a Bloc Quebecois member, I am particularly concerned about
the question of jurisdiction. Energy is a provincial
responsibility. This obviously includes energy efficiency.
Furthermore, Quebec is in the forefront when it comes to energy
efficiency.
Despite an increase in our population and in our economic
activities, Quebeckers use the same amount of energy they did 20
years ago.
1930
This is a testimony to the considerable efforts made by Quebec
with respect to energy efficiency. Quebec is leading the way in
Canada with its energy efficiency legislation, particularly as
it applies to new buildings.
In 1997, the Government of Quebec created the Agence de
l'efficacité énergétique. This agency has the backing of all
Quebeckers. The legislation that created it was passed
unanimously in the National Assembly. The agency will be the
focal point for anything having to do with energy efficiency in
Quebec.
Agency president Michel Dallaire shared his vision for the new
agency last May. I quote:
Between now and the year 2001, the Agence de l'efficacité
énergétique wishes to gain recognition as the key Quebec source
of reference for energy efficiency and an unbiased promoter of
its economic and environmental advantages.
One of this agency's mandates is to support R&D; in energy
efficiency technologies. This is, in fact, one of the main
concerns in the motion by our colleague for Winnipeg Centre.
Of course, the Government of Canada regulates interprovincial
commerce involving energy-consuming machinery and equipment.
Through its spending powers, the federal government also devotes
considerable resources to the promotion of energy efficiency,
particularly in the areas of R&D; and transportation.
Motion M-300 might be interpreted as being intended to encourage
the Government of Canada to broaden its jurisdiction over energy
efficiency. The Bloc Quebecois certainly has no intention of
helping the federal government to broaden its jurisdiction. The
federal government ought not to be needlessly duplicating
provincial efforts.
Any major federal initiative in the area of energy efficiency
ought to start off by gaining the support of the provinces. The
Bloc Quebecois wishes to ensure that increased federal resources
for energy efficiency will be used to support provincial
objectives and strategies in this area.
If the federal government were to put new programs into place in
this field, Quebec and the other provinces ought to be able to
opt out of these programs with full compensation.
In Quebec, the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique would be
responsible for managing the amounts in question, according to
its own priorities and strategy.
In conclusion, the economic concerns underlying Motion M-300 are
entirely laudable. Investing in energy efficiency can lead to
the creation of thousands of jobs and open up new markets for
businesses in Canada and in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is not
questioning this logic. However, economic logic should not be
the sole criterion by which this motion is judged.
The primary raison d'etre for an energy efficiency strategy is
to improve our environmental performance. Unfortunately, the
Government of Canada's track record in this regard is
disappointing. Existing initiatives could be much better
managed.
This is why we are reluctant to support the motion.
Before investing more money, the government must ensure that
existing programs are well run.
Furthermore, it is primarily for jurisdictional reasons that the
Bloc Quebecois has doubts about the content of this motion.
Quebec has its own agency for energy efficiency issues, which
will be responsible for all matters having to do with energy
efficiency in Quebec.
We wanted to move an amendment to Motion M-300 that would have
reflected provincial jurisdictions. Unfortunately, under the
Standing Orders, such an amendment would have gone beyond the
scope of the present motion and was therefore not allowed,
leaving us no choice but to oppose the motion before us.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I have the opportunity to speak to the motion
moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre. I will repeat the
motion as it is very prudent for us to break it down into its
parts.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should invest
in a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy—
The Progressive Conservative Party indeed agrees with that.
—thus: (a) exploiting the considerable job creation potential
of energy efficiency; (b) encouraging the development of high
tech expertise and export opportunities; and (c) increasing the
number of federally owned buildings (of which there are 50,000)
retrofitted for energy efficiency through the Federal Buildings
Initiative.
1935
I want to talk about the primary origin of why this particular
debate is becoming very topical. It comes down to the fact that
just over a year ago the industrialized world and emerging
nations attended a conference in Kyoto to make a tangible
approach to cut down carbon dioxide emissions and fight the
serious challenge of climate change.
Over the last 40 to 60 years the use of fossil fuels which we
use to heat our homes and drive our automobiles has proliferated
the amount of greenhouse gases within our environment. We are
now seeing a number of extreme weather events. Last year the ice
storm affected my riding of Fundy—Royal. It affected our
cousins in the United States and many of our cousins in the
province of Quebec. These severe weather conditions are products
of what can happen with the continuance of global warming. It is
prudent for us to look at this issue.
The government needs to engage in more energy efficiency. Canada
has an export driven economy, an economy that relies on our
natural resources and an economy that is industrially based. The
industrialized world said just over a year ago that it would be
investing in energy efficiency initiatives and research and
development on renewable sources of energy in order to address
the challenge of climate change.
President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore touched on the fact
that the Americans would be spending over $7 billion on energy
efficiency initiatives. This issue is just as much a trade issue
from the Canadian perspective as it is an environmental issue.
One thing we do know is that when the Americans want to engage in
a particular topic they usually do it quite well. Given that the
Americans will be spending over $7 billion on energy efficiency
and they can start spending that money before the senate or the
congress actually ratifies the Kyoto protocol, it is a myth that
we should wait until it is ratified.
Once the Americans start spending some cash on energy efficiency
is when we have to begin. If our American cousins start running
their industries in a more energy efficient and cost competitive
manner, it would have some very negative implications on our
country's competitiveness, on our ability to trade and on the
ability of our industries to compete on a cost perspective with
our American cousins.
The government speaks quite often about the need to reward early
action in terms of climate change. Canadians would be very happy
even with some action in terms of actually pushing to ensure that
we follow the same initiatives as our trading partners in the EU
and the United States.
We do not necessarily see this as an issue that has really
caught on with respect to the public, even though the science is
definitely very clear. I say that with a little jest because the
current government, as we were reviewing the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, built an environmental coalition
with the Reform Party. The Reform Party still disputes whether
the science on climate change is real. That party probably
would, on a different day if it thought it was advantageous,
argue that cigarette smoking was actually healthy.
In 1987 a conference was held in Montreal, known as the Montreal
protocol. The Canadian government was the principal government
in the world and led the world community in making firm
commitments to the reduction of ozone depleting gases.
That said, ozone depleting gases became something that was in the
forefront. The public mindset was that ozone depleting gases
were a bad thing for our environment. The government has yet to
make that kind of initiative in terms of getting this into the
public domain in terms of the need to fight climate change and
reduce gas emissions.
1940
I thank hon. members for the opportunity to speak here this
evening. The Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting
this motion by the member for Winnipeg Centre.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise
to address the House on the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Winnipeg Centre. I want to thank the hon. member for
bringing this matter before the House and commend him for his
interest in energy efficiency.
This is a very important issue for all Canadians, for our
economy, for our environment and indeed for our quality of life
here in Canada. It deserves the careful attention of this House.
In Canada and indeed around the world there is a growing
awareness that we need to use energy more efficiently. The
combustion, the use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural
gas produce greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to
climate change and to other environmental problems. Unless
action is taken now, future generations will be left with an
unmanageable environmental and economic burden.
I am pleased to say that Canada is a recognized world leader in
energy efficiency. Between 1990 and 1996, a period during which
our economy and population grew significantly, efficiency gains
by Canadians resulted in annual energy cost savings that reached
$4 billion for the year 1996. Secondary energy use was 3.2% lower
than it would have been without improvements in energy intensity.
Of course that means carbon dioxide emissions were also lower
than would otherwise have been the case.
In his motion the hon. member calls for the government to invest
in a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy that will create
jobs, lead to the development and export of innovative
technologies and demonstrate federal leadership. I am here to
inform the House that such a strategy is already in place and is
having a clear and positive impact on Canada's economy and on the
environment.
The Minister of Natural Resources is a champion of energy
efficiency in the government and across the Canadian economy. He
has demonstrated this most recently by establishing a dynamic new
organization, the office of energy efficiency, which is mandated
to strengthen his department's leadership efforts in this
particular area. This new organization is an important part of
the government's initial response to meeting the greenhouse gas
commitments made at Kyoto last December.
The office of energy efficiency is now delivering 18 programs
designed to move the market toward increased energy efficiency,
including three new programs launched this past April with a
funding commitment of $48 million over three years.
Some of these programs provide Canadian consumers and industries
with the information they need to become more energy efficient.
Others regulate minimum energy performance standards for certain
types of energy-using equipment or show leadership through
action.
The office of energy efficiency also delivers a financial
incentive program to improve the energy performance of commercial
buildings.
But market transformation, the changing of attitudes and the
removal of market barriers is only one side of the coin. It is
also critical that Canada develop technologies, processes and
systems that will enable us to use less energy and produce fewer
greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining our economic
competitiveness in a changing world. Toward this end the energy
technology branch of Natural Resources Canada delivers a wide
range of programs to support the research, development and
application of innovative energy efficiency technologies and
processes in all sectors of the economy.
Every project undertaken by the branch is done in partnership
with others in industry or the academic community so that
taxpayers' dollars are being used to foster investments in energy
efficiency. This is an excellent example of how federal spending
in strategic areas can also provide value added benefits to
society.
1945
The impact of these NRCan programs has been very positive.
While the debate has been mixed in the House among those who
disagree with the fact that we should be spending any time or
energy on energy efficiency versus those who would suggest that
we should spend more, Natural Resources Canada is providing a
healthy balance in providing market forces and market driven
activities which will lead to successful, innovative programs and
results.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is quite correct to make the
link between energy efficiency and job creation. Every $1
million invested in energy efficiency projects generates 20 years
of employment and millions are being invested each year.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of private members' business has now
expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of
precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have already
asked a question in the House on this issue concerning women in
my region.
They have crewed for their husbands for the past 8 years and
have always qualified for employment insurance. In recent weeks,
the Department of Human Resources Development has refused
employment insurance benefits to 40 of these women because of
the arm's length provisions.
There is cause for concern about the way the Department of Human
Resources Development interprets the arm's length provisions
when it comes to people working for a family member.
As I said, these women have fished for their husbands for eight
years. They got up at 4 in the morning, and put in their day
of fishing, for 8 years. Suddenly the government decided to look
into the situation and said “This is a matter of arm's length”.
It was the same last year, and the year before that. Then they
ask them to repay $15,000 or $20,000.
Even today I asked a question in the House, during Oral Question
Period. The government keeps giving us the same answer, that
78% of Canadian workers qualify for employment insurance.
In the House they say things that are not true.
It is not true for the simple reason that only 38% of people
paying into employment insurance qualify for it. That is
unfair. That is why when I asked my question I had asked
whether the government had something against women. Is this now
discrimination against women?
They not only checked women married to fishermen, but the
daughters of fishermen in certain cases. They did not check
boys, sons working for their fathers. Why do it for a daughter
working for her father? Why only the daughter or the mother?
This does not only occur in New Brunswick. In the Magdalen
Islands, a lot of women work with their husbands. I find it
really discriminatory to take it out on women the way they did.
Even the investigators were saying it is a matter of time. Very
soon, not one woman working for her husband now will get
employment insurance.
Fishing is essentially a family business. Is the department
telling fishermen they do not have the right to hire their
wives?
1950
I find the way the government is going after these people
completely intolerable. They get up at 4 a.m. and head out
fishing. They stay out until 2, 3 or 4 p.m., and fishing is not
easy.
There is one investigator who told a woman that she had not been
out fishing on the morning in question, but never went to talk
with her at the time. How could he know whether it was a woman
or a man under all that fishing gear? How can they base a
decision on someone telephoning them to say that the woman had
not been out fishing, or whatever, without any proof?
The government should conduct another investigation and allow
these women to collect EI.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
raised an important question. He has basically made the
allegation that the Department of Human Resources Development
Canada is discriminating against women, specifically in the
choices it makes during the evaluation of eligibility for
employment insurance benefits.
The people involved in the member's concerns are a group of
women who participated in the fishing industry in various forms.
They basically came to the hon. member with what I would call a
serious complaint. They felt that they were not receiving due
process.
It may be worth pointing out that the people in question
received what appears to be due process in that the Department of
Human Resources Development Canada received complaints from
members of the community in which the hon. member is actually a
resident himself. When there is an allegation that a person may
not be fulfilling the requirements under the arm's length
provisions of the employment insurance eligibility criteria, the
department has a responsibility to review it. It is quite often
referred to Revenue Canada for investigation.
Departmental notes show that under these circumstances the
evidence did not indicate that there was full compliance with the
requirements for insurable earnings. Again, these allegations of
abuse came from the community members themselves. They were not
generated by departmental officials per se, but in many instances
came from the community.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have only
four minutes in which to speak about the aberrations of the
employment insurance fund, in particular the aberrant responses
of the Minister of Human Resources Development. That is far
from enough.
Last October 20, I asked him how he was going to improve the
program. I also asked whether he was going to allow the
Minister of Finance to dip into the employment insurance fund.
I am sure he had given some thought to the response he gave us,
because the Minister of Human Resources Development is a great
thinker, such a thinker that he does not meet our expectations.
He does not act. I am certain that his inaction is evidence of
his refusal to budge on the issue of the employment insurance
fund surplus.
His reply to me was that this new “employment insurance lite”
met the needs of the unemployed. He also told me that those who
were not covered are those for whom the program was not
intended, people who have not worked and therefore have not
contributed.
According to Statistics Canada, 38% of the unemployed received
employment insurance in 1997. On the other hand, the Minister
of Human Resources Development's magic figure is 78%, that 78%
of those who have lost their jobs are eligible now.
Looking at the table of employment insurance coverage, we can
see that some people are excluded. One hundred thousand are
excluded because they left their jobs without valid grounds.
The only reason that is accepted is sexual harassment, and even
that has to be proved.
A total of 142,000 people are excluded because they do not meet
the eligibility requirements and another 35,000 have exhausted
their benefits.
1955
We know that many people are disqualified because of the tougher
criteria.
So, all the while, there is $20 billion building up in the EI
fund. The government is quite happy to dip into this fund but,
at the same time, it wants to give the rich greater tax breaks.
What we are asking is that the system be improved. The Minister
of Human Resources Development has been boasting about the
millions of dollars he is putting into two programs. He keeps
telling us how wonderful the transitional jobs fund and the
youth employment strategy are.
He has invested only $300 million over three years in the
transitional jobs fund and another $150 million over three
years, compared to the billions that are being taken from the
employment insurance fund. It is shameful. That is what the
great generosity of the Minister of Finance boils down to. We
know very well there is a flow between the consolidated fund and
the employment insurance fund.
I suggest to the Minister of Human Resources Development that he
step down from his limousine and visit the ridings that are
affected by employment insurance. He will discover the welcome
is not so warm and his answers to our questions are
insignificant and insipid.
He is also telling us the Bloc Quebecois wants people to be
unemployed.
When we were defending economic issues in order to keep jobs in
the Quebec City area, such as Quebec 2010, the Quebec-Nova Scotia
gas pipeline and the cruise ship casinos, did we hear from this
minister?
We did it to protect jobs in the region, not to make people
unemployed, as the minister says in his senseless answers. I
could provide a few other examples, such as the shipping policy,
MIL Davie, where the government showed up too late. I could
have used four minutes more.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think if we had 40
more minutes there probably would not be too many more new ideas
coming forward from the Bloc. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have
repeatedly tried to mix and match figures to suit their
particular purposes when it comes to discussing this particular
issue. They have not wanted to look at the true facts.
The Bloc Quebecois fails to mention that the recent analysis on
EI coverage clearly concludes that the EI program is indeed
meeting its key objective of providing temporary income support
between jobs to workers in Canada. It concludes that about 78%
of the unemployed who lost their jobs or quit with just cause
were indeed eligible in 1997; not 43% or 42% as alleged by
members opposite, but indeed 78%.
The employment insurance system is a major tool to help
unemployed Canadians, but it is just that. It is a tool.
Contrary to what the Bloc and the opposition insists, employment
insurance is not a panacea and is not for all unemployed
Canadians who are not automatically covered. For example, people
who are not entitled to EI are people who have never worked,
people who have quit their job to go back to school, or people
who are self-employed and do not pay EI premiums.
What the Bloc has consistently failed to mention is that in
addition to the significant measures under the EI program to help
put Canadians back to work who are indeed eligible for this
particular insurance, the Government of Canada is also providing
additional benefits and support through the youth employment
strategy, through the Canadian opportunities strategy, through
the transitional jobs fund, through the post-TAGS program in many
areas of Atlantic Canada and the Gaspé of Quebec, and indeed
active employment measures through the Part II funds of the
Employment Insurance Act, as well as the new hires program.
What members have failed to mention is that we are putting $1.1
billion in employment insurance premiums back in—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I asked on October 23 the following
question and did not receive an answer. I asked:
The APEC issue is about the constitutional rights of Canadians;
the right to speak out against injustice, the right not to be
arrested for only political purposes, and the right to fair
process before a tribunal. These things have all been suspended
by the government. Now the fix appears to be in and the
commission has been adjourned to November 16. We do not know
where this is going to go. We need a judicial inquiry to clean
up this mess. What will the government do to restore the
constitutional rights of Canadians that it has tossed aside?
2000
Most Canadians are very familiar with the ongoing saga of the
APEC inquiry. The inquiry has been a sham since the outset, and
today we know that the inquiry is in complete disrepute.
Reform is asking for an independent judicial inquiry and
Canadians agree. The only group that disagrees are the Liberals
and perhaps they are too afraid of what might be uncovered at
such an inquiry.
The students who protested at the Pacific Rim summit of APEC
leaders had every right under the charter of rights to do so.
This was the premise of my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The constitutional right of Canadians was suspended so the Prime
Minister would not be embarrassed.
No place in the charter of rights and freedoms does it state
that the rights of the prime minister supersede the rights of
ordinary citizens. In fact the charter is mainly there to
restrain governments.
The Deputy Prime Minister in his response to me outlined that I
should have praised the Prime Minister for his part in
establishing the charter of rights and freedoms. If the Deputy
Prime Minister is so proud of the charter, perhaps he might want
to go the next step and actually honour it, live by it, not just
when it is convenient.
Section 2(b) of the charter speaks of freedom of expression. It
guarantees that everyone has the right to express thoughts orally
or through writing or through pictures. If the government
restricts these thoughts it is trenching upon the guarantee. Many
students had their banners torn down because the content was not
in support of Suharto.
Section 2(c) of the charter speaks of freedom of assembly. The
rights of an accused cannot be restricted on a speculative
concern of danger. With the fear of something going wrong the
RCMP used clean-up tactics the day before the motorcade event.
This type of practice is commonplace in some other APEC countries
but should not happen in Canada according to the law but
apparently not Liberal law.
Section 9 of the charter says everyone has the right not to be
arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Law student Craig Jones was
tackled, arrested and imprisoned for holding up a sign that said
“free speech, democracy and human rights”. It almost seems
that every section of the charter was overridden to save the
Prime Minister from embarrassment.
When the RCMP went in to deal with these protesters the charter
of rights was tossed out the window. Whether or not the Prime
Minister gave the directive is a question Canadians hope will be
answered in an independent judicial inquiry. However, the Prime
Minister has always supported the action taken by the RCMP and
because of this support has told Canadians that he is above the
law and the charter.
Let me remind the government member who will be answering on
behalf of the government that Canadians are interested in the
truth. They want to know that the charter of rights works for
them, not against them. Canadians want to know that they are
able to speak their mind on any political issue without suffering
punishment. If the government is so proud of the charter then it
should prove to the House that it works and prove that the
students in Vancouver had the charter on their side.
The question remains: What will the government do to restore
the constitutional rights of Canadians that it has tossed aside?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the charter also
protects parliament and the operations of parliament. Quite
frankly the public complaints commission was enacted and brought
into being by an act of parliament.
The allegations that are constantly being brought forward by
this member and members of his party do not reflect the fact that
a specific complaint was lodged against a specific police force.
There is an act of parliament which governs, enshrines and
protects the laws of Canada. It has been brought into force to
review the particular complaint in that situation.
We are asking, and I am quite confident we have the backing of
all Canadians, to let the commission do its work. That is a very
simple request. It is within the scope and the purview of
parliament. It has been enacted by parliament. It operates at
arm's length from the government. We have no active role. That
is all we are asking for, to answer to the specific complaints
and the specific allegations.
The posturing, the rhetoric and the ill conceived political
grandstanding that have been constantly the trademark of the
particular party across the way cannot interfere with the due
process that must proceed and should proceed. The process was
formulated by parliament in a non-partisan way. It was voted
upon and enacted by parliament and should be outside the purview
of parliament. It should proceed on its own merit and in its own
way.
I simply ask for due process and justice to let the matter
proceed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 8.02 p.m.)