Debates of Feb. 11th, 2000

Municipal Grants Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour 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.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion lost.

Motion No. 44 negatived

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 3 and 20 to 40 inclusive.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-10, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 6 with the following:

“opinion of the Minister following public advice from an advisory panel established under section 11.1, does not provide, as”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of one land surveyor and at least two”

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of two land surveyors and at least two”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of three land surveyors and at least two”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of one land surveyor who is a member of an accredited professional corporation and at least two”

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of two land surveyors who are members of an accredited professional corporation and at least two”

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of three land surveyors who are members of an accredited professional corporation and at least two”

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of a land surveyor, in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act following an open competition, and at least two”

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of two land surveyors in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act following an open competition and at least two”

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 13 with the following:

“appoint an advisory panel of three land surveyors in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act following an open competition and at least two”

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 13 with the following:

“office during good behaviour for a term of three years, which term may be renewed for one further term. The”

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 13 with the following:

“office during good behaviour for a term of three years, which term may be renewed for two further terms. The”

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 13 with the following:

“renewed for one further term. The”

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 13 with the following:

“renewed for two further terms. The”

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) Where the advisory panel gives advice to the Minister under subsection (2) and the Minister decides not to accept that advice in exercising any power under this Act in respect of the subject-matter of that advice, the Minister shall, without delay, provide the advisory panel and the taxing authority in respect of whom the advice was given, with written reasons for that decision.”

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) The Minister shall, within thirty days after advice is received, cause a copy of the advice to be published in the Canada Gazette.”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) The advisory panel shall make available to the public any advice it gives under subsection (2).”

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) The Minister shall make available to the public any advice received from the advisory panel.”

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) For greater certainty, the advisory panel shall give advice on the basis of any relevant evidence and after consulting with all interested parties.”

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) The advisory panel shall also give the Minister advice concerning any real property or immovables developed or used as a public highway that, in the opinion of the Minister, does not provide, as its primary function, immediate access to real property or immovables owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada, and this advice shall be made public as soon as possible.”

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 39 and 40 on page 13 with the following:

“(3) Le président assure la supervision du comité et dirige les activités et le fonctionnement de celui-ci.”

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 40 on page 13 with the following:

“comité consultatif.”

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during debate on the first group of amendments, this bill has a lot of merit and a lot of support from the municipalities in Canada, and we want to register that support. However, there are improvements that can be made to the bill.

We are now addressing the motions in Group No. 2 and I wish to address my remarks specifically to Motion No. 33, which is the motion dealing with the advisory panel. I would like the folks watching the debate this afternoon to be aware of exactly what this section provides. I will read clause 11.1(2) of the proposed bill. Clause 11.1(1) establishes an advisory panel and 11.1(2) deals with the mandate of the advisory panel. It reads:

The advisory panel shall give advice to the Minister in the event that a taxing authority disagrees with a property value, property dimension or effective rate applicable to any federal property, or claims that a payment should be supplemented under subsection 3(1.1).

The creation of an advisory panel of this type is a commendable move. It brings into existence a mechanism which would allow the minister to test his particular orientation and also that of his officials so they could look at the assessment being proposed and the amount of taxation being levelled against particular properties and make sure that the advice has the benefit of consultation and expertise. There are some very good reasons for that.

I will give an example. I referred earlier to the case dealing with the Halifax Citadel. In this case Public Works and Government Services Canada agreed to pay for part of the building, that part which was designated as shelter, but it was not prepared to pay the other part. I commend the department for recognizing that there is a difference, but we get into some difficulty in interpreting exactly how we go about making the determination as to where the shelter begins and ends.

The suggestion was made by departmental officials that this interpretation, which is essentially a civil one, should be done through the civil courts. That is not a bad suggestion, as I said earlier this morning. However, there is a better and a much less costly suggestion, which is the advisory panel. It could come to grips with this very nicely. Its members would be business people. There are some suggestions that there would be professional assessors on the panel and some legal people, so this could all be done with competence, by people who are well versed in this area. Let them do the work rather than going through the legal channels of the court system.

The Citadel is an immediate case that could come to the attention of this panel.

The other example is Sable Island. In this controversy the department has stopped payment altogether. It has simply said that it is not paying any taxes until it knows to whom it is supposed to pay the taxes. Who has jurisdiction in this area? Is it the province? Is it the federal government? To what degree are the respective groups responsible?

That of course would not be a problem for HRDC. It would simply pay, but that is not the case here.

I commend the minister for taking responsible action, but what I would like to do, and what the Reform Party wants to do, is to make sure that there are precautionary measures which would allow the minister to be sure that he is accountable and that these kinds of things do not disappear.

I want to refer to the amendment because I think it is important. What we would really like to do is add a section which would follow immediately after the provision for the establishment of the panel to ensure that the panel provides advice to the minister. The way the act reads now, the minister may accept that advice, he may reject it, he may simply ignore it, or he may amend it. What we are suggesting in the amendment is that where the advisory panel gives advice to the minister under subsection (2) and the minister decides not to accept that advice in exercising any power under this act in respect of the subject matter of that advice, the minister shall without delay provide the advisory panel and the taxing authority in respect of whom the advice was given with written reasons for that decision.

Why do we believe that written reasons are so important? I think there is a very good example that came out of the audit of HRDC.

I will refer to two lines of that report, which say that the original dollar value of the agreement was amended in one-third of the projects. That is one in three. These are agreements that came out of HRDC and money was given to these projects. The amount of money was reviewed, and in most cases it was revised upward. In 36% of these cases there were no reasons given for the change in dollars awarded. The people asked for an amount of money, they got more, and there is no documentation as to why those amendments were made.

There is another example. I will read directly from the auditor's report. When it comes to the monitoring or the overseeing of projects, “some program officers expressed the opinion that financial monitoring was not required if the results were achieved within the agreed budget”.

What that really means, or could mean, is that there is absolutely no accounting. As long as they did not spend any more money than they were given on a particular project everything would be okay. Whether the results actually were achieved is another issue. Whether they actually did not have to spend all the money on that project was not important either. If they provided an inflated budget and the HRDC people, or whoever was doing this, granted the full amount, and they actually achieved the results and only needed half of the money, or a portion of that money, then that was perfectly all right. That is irresponsible.

When people in a business have a budget for certain expenditures for equipment, installation or services that are provided for that business, and it will cost roughly $10,000 to do it, and then they discover as they go along that it really will cost only $8,000, what do they do with the $2,000? Do they automatically take that $2,000 and let it disappear, or do they apply it in another way and let it come back to be disposed of in a way that is most beneficial to the business?

There is no doubt in my mind that a private entrepreneur would take that money and reapply it and not automatically inflate the expenditures in that area to meet the allocated budgetary provision.

That is precisely what we are looking at here. That is one area.

The other thing we are looking at is to make sure that the minister, while having tremendous discretionary power given to him by the constitution, the law of this land, which is to protect the interests of the people of Canada, is accountable and transparent, and that the processes are such that they are fair and equitable to all concerned.

That would be good for the municipalities. That would be good for the provinces. That would be good for the minister. That would be good for the government. It is time we brought about some fairness and equity in all of these cases. Where a minister is not required to take a particular and specific requirement that he must pay, he at least must provide reasons for what he did or did not do.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to what my colleague from the Reform Party has had to say. His remarks were totally relevant.

The Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-10, although we might have liked to have seen a little less discretionary power left with the minister, a little more of a framework for the minister, just for the sake of transparency. I believe the municipalities would have been pleased to see that.

Unfortunately, apparently out of concern for efficiency, the minister's discretion will be exercised a bit more in the shadows. That is the major reason why the Reform Party and our own party felt some reluctance to pass the bill. That is why I had proposed so many amendments, in order for the committees set up by the minister under the act to include people with expertise in assessing and surveying property in the various ridings. That was the primary purpose of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

Unfortunately, they were not accepted, apparently out of concern for reaching a decision as efficiently and rapidly as possible.

We bow to that argument in the end, because we are aware that the municipalities are anxious to see the bill adopted at all stages. We will not delay its passing, but I would nevertheless make a recommendation to my colleague over there, the government House leader. Next time, in order to avoid a debate like the one we have been having today, he might suggest to his ministers that the bill include provisions to make it transparent, unlike the goings on at the present time in Human Resources Development.

I think everyone would stand to gain from this. The municipalities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities also, would agree with such a proposal, as would all of the stakeholders.

I am the last Bloc Quebecois member to speak. We can move on to passing this bill, with the hope that the municipalities will find what they want in it, after such a long wait.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of issues raised in this last portion of the debate.

It is true that the panel's recommendations would not be binding but we must understand that the property of Canada was exempt from taxation under the Constitution Act, 1867 and federal payments in lieu of taxes remain at the discretion of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The discretionary powers of the minister under the act may not be delegated to another body. There is no doubt however the Minister of Public Works and Government Services would place a high value on the advice of the panel which will be structured to be as independent as possible from the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

In respect to making the recommendations of the panel public, I would like to remind members of the House that the panel's recommendations will be provided simultaneously to the minister and the taxing authority which requested the review.

In summary, this bill ensures the prompt payment of taxes. It provides certainty. It gives structures for dispute mechanisms and an ongoing joint technical advisory committee. It has the full support of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The government has accepted amendments at committee. All parties except the Reform Party are satisfied with the bill in its present form. The government respectfully suggests that the bill be adopted in its present form without amendment.

I would like to give my personal compliments to the minister who travelled around the country to get input from all municipalities, the departmental staff who have done an amazingly good job of putting everybody's requests into the bill and particularly the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which co-operated so effectively.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 3. 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.