House of Commons Hansard #115 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parties.

Topics

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, another petition from a group in my riding is calling upon Parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This is about providing rural route mail couriers the right to have a union.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Last, Mr. Speaker, petitioners in my riding pray upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 213, 219, 220, 222 and 224.

Question No. 213
Routine Proceedings

June 10th, 2003 / 10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid Lanark—Carleton, ON

With respect to the issuance of Performance Bonds (form IMM 1230) and Security Deposits (form IMM 0514): ( a ) how many of each have been issued in each of the last five years; ( b ) for which types of visas; ( c ) what was the money value of typical bonds and deposits; and ( d ) how many were forfeited for non-compliance with the conditions of the bond or deposit?

Question No. 213
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Bourassa
Québec

Liberal

Denis Coderre Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Insofar as Citizenship and Immigration Canada is concerned, the reply is as follows:

With respect to (a):

Note: CIC has been in the process of implementing a national case management system, NCMS, since 1999 and the roll out will be completed in June 2003. Although the department has some data for some locations, it does not have a full count of performance bonds issued for the period requested. A performance bond is a promissory note to pay if an immigration condition is not met.

With respect to (b), performance bonds and security deposits are not issued for visas. They are issued as a means of ensuring that any and all conditions imposed, either by an immigration officer or by a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, are respected.

With respect to (c), individual risk factors, as well as the ability of the person or guarantor to meet the requirements of the performance bonds or cash deposit, are considered by the decision maker when setting the value of the bond or security deposit. There is therefore no typical value for performance bonds.

For security deposits, the value can vary substantially. The average value of bonds deposited for the five year period was approximately $3,152.

With respect to (d):

Question No. 219
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle St. John's East, NL

Could the Minister of Finance confirm that if a Manitoba parent of three disabled children in a family with a total income of $35,000 were to earn an extra $1,000 working overtime in 2003, the following would be lost to taxes and clawbacks: ( a ) $220 in federal taxes; ( b ) $149 in provincial tax on taxable income; ( c ) $10 in clawback of Manitoba family tax reduction; ( d ) $50 in clawback of Goods and Services Tax credit; ( e ) $321 in clawback of National Child Benefit and Child Disability Benefit; ( f ) $50 in clawback Canada Child Tax Benefit; ( g ) $15 in Employment Insurance net of federal and provincial tax credit; ( h ) $36 in Canada Pension Plan net of federal and provincial tax credit; and ( i ) the total of the above being $851 which equals to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.1 per cent of the additional amount earned?

Question No. 219
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Oak Ridges
Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

A Manitoba family with three disabled children and a total income of $35,000 would not be subject to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.1% because it would not pay any federal or provincial personal income tax. The calculation of the effective marginal tax rate in the example does not reflect the fact that this family would be able to claim the disability tax credit for the children who have disabilities. In fact, a family under these circumstances would not pay any federal personal income tax until almost $43,000 of total income.

Not only would this family not pay any income tax, but in 2003 it would receive about $8,500 in federal net benefits through the Canada child tax benefit, the proposed child disability benefit, and the goods and services tax credit.

This being said, it is correct that some low and modest income families may face high effective marginal tax rates as a result of benefit reduction rates applying in addition to income tax rates over some income ranges. Benefit reduction rates arise from the need to income-test benefits to target government assistance to those who need it most. The budget presented in the House of Commons on February 18, 2003, indicates that “going forward, the federal government and the provinces will need to ensure that, as the welfare wall is overcome, low and modest income families with children who realize greater earnings, for example, by taking up better paying jobs-- keep more of the extra money they earn. This will include examining the reduction or ‘claw-back’ rates for the CCTB as well as other elements of the tax and benefit structure that may affect incentives to work and earn income for low and modest income families”.

Question No. 220
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle St. John's East, NL

Could the Minister of Finance confirm that if a Newfoundland parent of three disabled children in a family with a total income of $35,000 were to earn an extra $1,000 working overtime in 2003, the following would be lost to taxes and clawbacks: ( a ) $220 in federal taxes; ( b ) $162 in provincial tax on taxable income; ( c ) $50 in clawback of Goods and Services Tax credit; ( d ) $321 in clawback of National Child Benefit and Child Disability Benefit; ( e ) $50 in clawback Canada Child Tax Benefit; ( f ) $15 in Employment Insurance net of federal and provincial tax credit; ( g ) $36 in Canada Pension Plan net of federal and provincial tax credit; and ( h ) the total of the above being $854, which equals to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.4 per cent of the additional amount earned?

Question No. 220
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Oak Ridges
Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

A family living in Newfoundland with three disabled children and a total income of $35,000 would not be subject to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.1% because it would not pay any federal personal income tax. The calculation of the effective marginal tax rate in the example does not reflect the fact that this family would be able to claim the disability tax credit for the children who have disabilities. In fact, a family under these circumstances would not pay any federal personal income tax until almost $43,000 of total income.

Not only would this family not pay any federal income tax, but in 2003 it would receive about $8,500 in federal net benefits through the Canada child tax benefit, the proposed child disability benefit, and the goods and services tax credit.

This being said, it is correct that some low and modest income families may face high effective marginal tax rates as a result of benefit reduction rates applying in addition to income tax rates over some income ranges. Benefit reduction rates arise from the need to income-test benefits to target government assistance to those who need it most. The budget presented in the House of Commons on February 18, 2003, indicates that “going forward, the federal government and the provinces will need to ensure that, as the welfare wall is overcome, low and modest income families with children who realize greater earnings, for example, by taking up better paying jobs--keep more of the extra money they earn. This will include examining the reduction or ‘claw-back’ rates for the CCTB as well as other elements of the tax and benefit structure that may affect incentives to work and earn income for low and modest income families”.

Question No. 222
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Have Canadian tobacco manufacturers and importers provided reports to Health Canada under the requirements of the Tobacco Reporting Regulations and, if so, for each reporting period since January 1, 2001: ( a ) what is the total expenditure for all promotional activities reported under section 16; ( b ) which sponsored events were reported under section 18; ( c ) which permanent facilities were reported under section 19; ( d ) which services were reported under section 21; ( e ) what is the total payment to retailers and what is the total number of retailers receiving payments reported under section 22; and ( f ) which non-tobacco products displaying a tobacco brand element were reported under section 24?

Question No. 222
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Edmonton West
Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan Minister of Health

A number of Canadian tobacco manufacturers and importers have provided reports to Health Canada in accordance with the requirements set out in the tobacco reporting regulations, TRR.

With respect to (a):

With respect to (b), a previous request under the Access to Information Act (ATIA) for information submitted under section 18 of the Tobacco Reporting Regulations was received in 2001. At the time, our decision to release this information was challenged before the Federal Court by the tobacco industry. The request was withdrawn by the requester and the determination of whether the information could be released under the ATIA was never resolved by the court. The information is not currently available for disclosure in this manner and the use of a statutory system such as the Access to Information Act (ATIA) is the most appropriate avenue for a request of this third party information.

With respect to (c), none. This section of Tobacco Reporting Regulations only comes into effect after October 1, 2003

With respect to (d), none.

With respect to (e):

Note: The number of retailers does not represent individual retailers as the different tobacco companies may have made payments to the same retailer and retailers would therefore be included more than once in totals.

With respect to (f), the following non-tobacco products that displayed a tobacco brand element were disclosed under section 24 of TRR: golf balls, pocket knife, pen, blanket, banner, display booth, bag, ballot box, clock, port glass, pipe, and filter tip tubes.

Question No. 224
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Garry Breitkreuz Yorkton—Melville, SK

With respect to the payment of licencing fees from Canadian Wheat Board pooling accounts contrary to section 7(3) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act: ( a ) what facts has the Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board discovered; ( b ) what corrective action has he taken; ( c ) what were the results of the investigation by his officials and law officers; and ( d ) since January 1, 2001, what is the total amount the Canadian Wheat Board has taken from pooling accounts to pay interprovincial and export licensing fees including the administrative and management costs for the national licensing program?

Question No. 224
Routine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Wascana
Saskatchewan

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Minister of Public Works and Government Services

This matter was referred to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) board of directors and their legal counsel.

Regarding (a), fees or costs associated with the administration of licences fall within the purview of the management of the CWB, which is conducted under the direction of the CWB board of directors. The CWB has indicated for the 2000-01 crop year that export licences issued for grain produced in the designated area amounted to 96% of the total licences issued. The administrative costs of issuing export licences in the 2000-01 crop year amounted to $101,115. Almost all of this expense was incurred with respect to staffing. As such it is an administrative expense of the CWB and may be deducted from proceeds received into the pool accounts per paragraph 33(1)(a) of the act. The CWB's Export Licensing Department handles all aspects of issuing export licences and is composed of two full-time members. Given that most of the export licences are issued in connection with grain produced in the designated area, it would take both staff members to administer those licences alone. Accordingly, there are no incremental costs to the CWB for issuing the relatively small number of licences for grain produced from outside the designated area.

With respect to subsection 7(3) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the CWB argues that this subsection, in fact, deals with losses sustained by the corporation. Subsection 7(3 ) provides that such losses from its operations in relation to any pool period relating to interprovincial and export marketing of wheat by the CWB, and from other operations, for which no other provision is made under the act, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. Given that there are no incremental administrative costs regarding grain from the non-designated area, there are no losses sustained by the CWB from administering these export licenses.

Regarding (b), no corrective action was required.

With respect to (c), the answer to (a) above describes the facts discovered and the response to (b) above describes the conclusion reached.

With respect to (d), the administrative costs of issuing export licences in the 2000-01 crop year amounted to $101,115.

Question No. 224
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 224
Routine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?