Debates of Jan. 28th, 2013

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1104

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

With regard to Sri Lankan nationals being sent back to Sri Lanka by Canada: (a) in assessing the risk of torture or other abuses that could be faced by a person sent by Canada to Sri Lanka, what relevance is given to the following factors: (i) the person being a young Tamil male from the north or northeast of Sri Lanka, (ii) the person being returned from a country or city viewed by the Sri Lankan government as formerly or currently a hub of pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) activity, (iii) the person having voiced criticism or engaged in peaceful protest against the government of Sri Lanka while outside Sri Lanka; (b) does the government consider Sri Lankan nationals of Tamil or Tamil-speaking origin to be vulnerable as a group to mistreatment in Sri Lanka and, if not, does the government consider any of the following sub-groups to be at risk: (i) young males, (ii) critics of the Sri Lanka regime, (iii) journalists, (iv) failed refugee claimants, (v) successful refugee claimants being refouled, (vi) known members of the LTTE, (vii) persons suspected or likely to be suspected by the Sri Lankan government as being members of the LTTE, (viii) persons known to hold pro-LTTE views; (c) in the case of sending a Sri Lankan national to Sri Lanka, whether by extradition, deportation, removal or any other method involving the government, do Canadian officials take any of the following precautions: i) escort returnees on the plane back to Sri Lanka, ii) meet returnees upon their arrival at the airport in Sri Lanka, iii) observe treatment of the returnee at the airport (and if so, for how long), iv) monitor the whereabouts and treatment of a returnee after the airport arrival; (d) does the taking of precautions relate in any way to whether or not a person has been sent back to Sri Lanka only after Canada has received diplomatic assurances; (e) has the government, whether in Canada or at the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka, received reports or expressions of concern from reliable sources about the treatment of persons sent from Canada to Sri Lanka and, if so, how many and on what dates; (f) has the government, whether in Canada or at the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka, received reports or expressions of concern from reliable sources about the treatment of persons who voluntarily returned from Canada to Sri Lanka after having arrived in Canada to make a refugee claim and, if so, how many and on what dates; (g) when concerns are expressed from reliable sources in cases (e) and (f), such as by a Canadian lawyer, about the treatment of a returnee after their return to Sri Lanka and the location of the returnee, such as in Criminal Investigation Division (CID) custody or in hospital, (i) what measures does the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka take, (ii) if any measures are taken, do they include visiting the returnee and interviewing them about any abuse or persecution they may have suffered, (iii) if interviewing does take place, does it take place in the presence of Sri Lanka state officials and, if so, whom, (iv) if the interview raises concerns or suspicions about abuse of persecution, what is then done; (h) are Canadian law enforcement, border services, intelligence, military, or diplomatic officials permitted to (i) participate in interrogations by any state actors in Sri Lanka, (ii) observe such interrogations, (iii) supply information for, or questions to be asked at, such interrogations, and if so, which category of officials (law enforcement, intelligence, military, or diplomatic) with which Sri Lanka state actors, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions may this have taken place; (i) from 2003 to present, have Canadian law enforcement, border services, intelligence, military, or diplomatic officials ever (i) participated in interrogations by any state actors in Sri Lanka, (ii) observed such interrogations, (iii) supplied information for, or questions to be asked at, such interrogations and, if so, by which category of officials (law enforcement, intelligence, military, or diplomatic), to which Sri Lankan state actor, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions may this have taken place; (j) how many Sri Lankan nationals have been sent back to Sri Lanka, whether by extradition, deportation, removal or any other method involving the government, since the beginning of 2007, in each of (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2010, (v) 2011, (vi) 2012 to date; (k) within the above numbers, which are due to removal orders; (l) how many Sri Lankan nationals are currently subject to removal orders that have not yet been executed; (m) how many of those sent to Sri Lanka since the start of 2007 have been sent only after diplomatic assurances were obtained; (n) are such assurances legally binding and, if not, on what basis did the government consider them reliable; (o) in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in Suresh on the problem with relying on assurances from a government of a state where torture is practised, does the government consider that diplomatic assurances from Sri Lanka can be relied upon at the present time; (p) in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in Suresh on monitoring in relation to diplomatic assurances, does the government consider that monitoring mechanisms must be part of diplomatic assurances and, if so, what are the nature of the mechanisms in any diplomatic assurances with respect to returnees to Sri Lanka; (q) are there written policies, sets of guidelines or similar documents containing rules, principles or considerations for determining when and how assurances will be sought, and for determining if assurances are adequate; and (r) with respect to Vote 30b of the Supplementary Estimates considered at the Justice and Human Rights Standing Committee on November 29, 2012, and its reference to “assurances against torture in exceptional removal cases”, (i) what is the definition of an “exceptional removal case”, (ii) how many such cases have there been between 2007 and present, (iii) how many have been removals to Sri Lanka?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1105

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With respect to the World War II Canadian military site in Botwood, Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) what records and internal and external correspondence are available regarding all aspects of its history and cleanup, contamination studies, ownership, divestiture to the municipality or province, plans, or any other information related to the site, and what are the details of these records and correspondence; (b) what plans are there to compensate the Town of Botwood for its investment in cleaning up the Canadian military contamination on this site; (c) what plans are there to complete the removal of contaminants on this site; (d) what are the timelines for the plans in (c); and (e) for all responses to (a), (b), (c) and (d), what are the details of all records and correspondence specifically generated in preparing the response to this question?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1107

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

With regard to budget cuts at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO ): (a) what is a detailed breakdown of the $11.5 million reduction in funding for investments in Fisheries Science Research; (b) what is a detailed breakdown of the cuts to habitat management, including (i) the total number of jobs lost, (ii) the location of the jobs lost, (iii) the titles of the jobs lost; (c) what is a detailed breakdown of the financial cuts to each DFO research centres in Canada; and (d) what is a detailed breakdown of the DFO cuts on Prince Edward Island, including (i) the total number of jobs lost, (ii) the location and job title of each job lost, (iii) what office spaces will be left vacant because of DFO cutbacks and what, if any, are the plans for the vacated office spaces?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Aboriginal Affairs

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I will hear her now.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has proposed an emergency debate on the breakdown of first nations and Crown relationships as evidenced by the continuing peaceful protests across the country. In fact, today on Parliament Hill, Idle No More has gathered to continue to raise these issues.

In particular, concerns are being raised that omnibus bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which affect inherent aboriginal rights, were passed into law without the constitutionally required consultation and accommodation. Now the Mikisew Cree First Nation and the Frog Lake First Nation have filed a notice of application for a judicial review on the conduct of the responsible ministers in developing environmental policies and the proposed implementation of those policies through the omnibus statutes, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

This is the first time since nationwide rallies began on December 10 that the House has had the opportunity to consider this matter. In that time, the rallies have grown, both in size and in the number of their locations across the country. International attention has been brought to these matters, with support for the protests from six continents. The continued disregard for the concerns being expressed at the grassroots level puts at risk Canada's economic security and the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Therefore, the NDP is requesting this emergency debate and I thank the Speaker for his careful consideration.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. While I have no doubt that it is an important issue to her and to many people, I am not inclined to grant it at this time. However, I do note that there is an allotted day, which was just announced today, on this Thursday. Perhaps she could avail herself of that opportunity.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has two and a half minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques another question.

Canada's competitiveness issues have been mentioned a lot. My colleague talked about this. We could go even further and talk about how accessible the tax system is to individuals. According to one very worrying statistic, more than half of Canadian taxpayers do not fill out their own income tax returns.

I would like the member to comment on that, given what he already said in the House during his speech.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for his very pertinent question.

The fact is that over half of all Canadians need help to file their tax return. That is very problematic because the Canadian law is based on the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It cannot be used as a defence. However, when we are dealing with the Income Tax Act, it is very difficult to really know all the ins and outs, and all the interpretations.

It is very problematic to have an act so complex that we cannot expect Canadians to know it thoroughly. Even tax experts do not know all the ins and outs of this legislation. Canadians must rely on softwares that are still relatively imperfect. Ultimately, if we want a tax adviser who can really help, it is going to cost us an arm and a leg.

Right now, there is a fundamental problem: citizens, and even businesses, are unable to comply with the act. They can easily and unwittingly violate it, because it is complex to the point of being incomprehensible.

This should prompt the House to reflect seriously on the complexity of the Canadian tax system and on how it could be made simpler.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really delightful to be back on the Hill. However, I had an amazing time while in the riding of Newton—North Delta, meeting with my constituents, going to events and listening to their concerns. It is good to be back here so I can bring their concerns into the House. I want to thank them for the amazing busyness they provided for me while I was in the riding. It certainly was delightful.

Once again, we have another omnibus bill that is close to a thousand pages and thicker than most of our communities' phone books.

This omnibus bill is a lot different than the Trojan horse budget bill in which the government buried everything that it did not want Canadians to know about, whether with respect to the degradation of environmental protection, changes to refugees or EI and a huge number of other protections. All of those were embedded in the Trojan horse budget bill, which made it very unpalatable, as was the bill we debated just before the House rose. There was also so much stuff in there that was not related. However, under the guise of the budget, the Conservatives were trying to carry out their agenda so we as parliamentarians could not debate it.

However, this bill is a little different. I know this will come as a shock, but I rise today to support the bill because the legislation has been a long time coming.

When I look at the history of when the last changes were made, the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001. When I think about that, so much has changed and yet we have not had clarity there for either investors, the business community or for Canadians who want to try to understand the tax system.

What does disturb me, though, are the changes that should have happened under the Liberal government too. Therefore, I am not just saying that this has been a delay from the side of the Conservatives. Rather, my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, while they were in government, were very remiss in not providing the kind of clarity that we all needed when dealing with taxes and people's money. They avoided doing that too, so we are pleased to see this here.

Before we go any further, let me make it perfectly clear that the New Democrats absolutely believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We are pleased the government, although very late, is trying to clarify some areas and close some loopholes to avoid getting into difficulties where people can manoeuvre the system and also avoid paying legitimate taxes, which help to provide Canadians with the services they so cherish. Therefore, we support the changes being made to the bill, especially those that tackle tax avoidance.

However, in 2009 the Auditor General raised concerns with respect to the fact that there were at least 400, not 5 or 10, outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. That is a lot of technical issues within our income tax laws that were there but not made legal through the legislative process.

I am concerned and I hope the Conservatives will look at addressing the 200 amendments that they have not included in this legislation. We really have to take a look and pay attention to the Auditor General.

When I visit my constituents in Newton—North Delta and other Canadians, whether in Edmonton, or Saskatoon, or Montreal or any of our other great cities and communities across the country, they expect something from the government. They expect us to do the work in the House with a fair and open debate, not closure after closure to shut down debate. It is only when we debate that they get hear what is happening.

However, there is something else they expect and that is transparency. I believe this legislation would give greater clarity and more transparency that would have be legislated and people could get to know this.

I do not often feel sorry for accountants and tax consultants and all those people who do a job I could not possibly do. However, I get a headache just thinking about the hundreds of amendments they will have to deal with if they are to do their job well. We want them to do their job well and we also want our Canadian citizens and residents to know what the rules are, but a lot is being dumped on them. At the same time, at least it will give them some clarity.

What I hear from my constituents and from Canadians in our diverse communities, whether rural or urban, is that they want transparency. I think they are looking for transparency from the Conservative government.

Sometimes I am amazed. I am glad we are dealing with these amendments and previous colleagues have gone into a lot of the technical side. However, why do we have these amendments to give clarity and transparency and yet we have a government that does not believe in that when it comes to its own actions? After all, the Parliamentary Budget Officer had to threaten to go to court and had to take steps to get the government side to put on the table information that should have been available to him so we could look at it and examine it. That should cause us a great deal of concern.

It is one thing to say clarity for others, but it is time that the government and my colleagues across the aisle start to take a look at their own actions and how they run government, whether it shutting down debate in the House, moving time closures, rushing through legislation and burying legislation in omnibus budget bills that really have very little to do with the budget. More or less they are trying to cover and hide things from Canadians.

We really have to urge the government to think about how it portrays itself to the greater public.

When I was in my riding, I kept hearing people say that they were concerned about the taxes they paid, that they expected some services for those taxes. One of the things I kept hearing was that service centres were being shut down and that people who needed to go on EI kept phoning 1-800 numbers and would have to wait for hours and even then they did not get any great satisfaction, and that was even before they had filled out their forms.

There are a lot of questions about why the government is cutting so much of that front-line service, whether it is shutting down our Canada service centres where people get all kinds of assistance, or whether it is shutting down our CIC centres around the country and people are left without any services in those areas as well.

People are concerned about transparency, which is what this legislation is all about.

I also heard from community after community about the long waits for citizenship. I found out that in order for a family with two children to get Canadian citizenship, even after they have met all the requirements, they have to pay a fee of $200 per adult and $100 for each child. In order for them to get their Canadian citizenship they have to save. Many families work two or three jobs to make ends meet. They save that money and with a great deal of pride, they apply for their Canadian citizenship thinking they are going to get it within six to twelve months. I saw a room full of files. A citizenship judge told me that he would not get to them for two and a half years.

Our front-line services are being cut. Residents of Canada who qualify to vote and have other rights as citizens are being denied those rights because so many front-line workers who are absolutely critical are being cut.

Not an hour goes by that I do not get either an email in my riding office, or a phone call, or a message on Facebook or through the Twitter world asking why people have to wait so long. People who work here and pay their EI dues wonder why they have to wait. People who live here and meet all the criteria wonder why there has been no action and why they have to wait so long for their citizenship.

The other thing that came up, which again has to do with transparency and priorities, was the debacle the government made of its procurement. It is a well-known story to men, women and children across the country. It has become a joke at the kitchen table. We have been told it will be a few billion, or $17 billion, or such and such billion. Then we are told the government does not have a contract so it will start again.

People want to know about transparency. They want to know the government's priorities. The Conservatives talk about job creation and the economy. To my constituents the reality is that the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider.

Many residents in my riding of Newton—North Delta are working two or three jobs at minimum wage or a bit higher in order to make ends meet and they have to pay more user fees for different things. They look at our priorities and transparency around the hospital in Surrey. For one of the fastest growing cities, our hospital is in dire straits. I have nothing against the staff members. They do an amazing job. I had the misfortune to go with someone into the emergency room and I realized that we needed to look at priorities. We need to address key health care issues across the country. We need to address the issue of doctors. Once again it is about where we put our resources.

I talk to taxi drivers. I talk to people who work on building sites. I go door-to-door and talk to people. I talk to thousands of people at big events. Over and over these people have told me that they have heard the government say that it will do something about credentials, but they have not seen the government take any action. Words do not cut it anymore.

My constituents are looking for clarity from the government. It is really time for the government to look at its priorities and start to address the dire needs of many of our citizens.

In my riding, the food bank does an incredible job. I am so grateful to the communities of Surrey and Delta because they donate so generously, both businesses and individuals. It breaks my heart to see the children of the very families who have received help from the food bank come in to donate because they know what it is like to be hungry and financially stretched.

These are the kinds of priorities we should be investing our resources in. We know that if we addressed the issue of poverty, it would have a huge impact on health care costs. If we invested in education, it would have a huge impact on health care costs, resulting in huge savings.

It is a very technical bill. The consultants, lawyers, accountants and business community will spend days perusing this bill because there is a lot of stuff in here, and we will tackle all of these issues at committee. As I said, we are supporting this piece of legislation, but at the same time we are questioning where the government's priorities are when it comes to the utilization of taxes paid by the Canadian public.

I want to thank my colleague who visited my riding. We canvassed the business community on Scott Road and the Scott Road Punjabi Market. For members who do not know that market, I have to say that the first time my granddaughter went there she told her teacher that she had been in India on the weekend. My daughter lives on Vancouver Island. It is a diverse community with a very strong South Asian community with lots of businesses.

A businessman there showed me his credit card bill, and even though he had a negotiated rate of one-point something percent, because of the kind of credit cards that are being used, his bill was actually at a rate of 3.64%. He said he was struggling daily to keep his business going, because that rate eats into his profit margin. Small businessmen live in a very competitive world. It is a business community that we need to support because those jobs stay in our riding and that money gets spent in our ridings and communities right here in Canada. It almost broke my heart listening to him tell the kinds of struggle he was having. Of course, when we told him that come April 1 there would be a further increase, he said he would just have to tell people that he would not take credit cards any more. That, he said, would lose him a lot of business because a lot of people do not carry cash but use their cards for all kinds of things. That is really critical.

I met with young people from different schools, and in my riding office as well. I asked them what their priorities were and what was important to them. They told me that the number one issue was the environment. The second issue was affordable housing and addressing the gap between the rich and the poor, and the poverty issues. The third thing they said was that we have to address the issues of our aboriginal communities, which I was delighted to hear. They were sensitized to that because of the Idle No More movement, which has done a lot to raise the average person's awareness of these issues. The students then mentioned the need for decent paying jobs right here in Canada. Their point was that when we extract our resources, we should do it in an environmentally safe way and then develop decent paying jobs right here in Canada so they can have a future without having to work two or three minimum wage jobs and wonder whether they can ever afford to have a family.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the member's speech, it was almost as if she had not been here for the last number of years, but I know she has. She asked a number of times about the government's priorities, which I would just like to remind her of.

For example, the government has said that its number one priority is jobs and the economy. We have created more jobs than any other comparable industrialized economy in the world, now over 900,000. Statistics Canada has said that the bulk of these are full-time and good paying jobs.

We have also made health care and education priorities. We have funded those more than any other government in history and we have protected transfers to the provinces.

We have also made it a priority to stand with our partners in NATO. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken out on behalf of those less fortunate in the world, those who need someone to speak on their behalf.

Those are the priorities of our government. Where has the member been?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that I have been debating many of these issues. We have a disagreement. When the member talks about our commitments internationally, the concern I hear over and over again in my community and other communities is the loss of Canada's international status. We have lost our standing. We no longer have a seat on the Security Council. In some ways we are seen as more belligerent than even our friends to the south.

When the member talks about investing in jobs, I want to take him to the real world, the world I go back home to every weekend. It is a world where people who were once making $18 to $22 an hour are now working at $12 to $13 an hour because of the actions of the government, with many of their jobs now contracted out. I would challenge the member to see if he could support a family in Canada today in the suburbs of Surrey on $13 a hour and see how great his economic plan is going.

When we look at environmental issues, he says that the Conservatives have protected the environment. However, one just has listen to elementary and high school students, who get it, that the government has absolutely degraded our environmental protections.

The Conservatives cannot say they are economic boosters. As a matter of fact, I would say they are doing more harm in the short term and the long term.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the issue of priorities because it is important not to lose sight of that issue. We need to recognize there are numerous technical amendments to the taxation legislation through Bill C-48. There is nothing new there, in that we have been waiting for amendments for many years now.

Ultimately, government could argue that we should wait two or three years, allow these to accumulate and then bring in a more modest bill, maybe of 100 or 150 pages. What is obviously wrong with this legislation, even though we will be supporting it, is that the government took so much time to put into place the necessary and important technical amendments in legislation. If we look at tax documents, we will find they are asterisked and colour coded, showing that there are many amendments necessary.

In keeping with the issue of priorities, does the member not believe that if this type of legislation were the priority of government, that it could and should have been dealt with two or three years ago in smaller bills? We do not have to respond immediately to the vast majority of the necessary technical amendments, but it is reasonable for us to expect that every three or four years there should be some sort of legislation brought in to make the changes. Does the member not agree?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague the last time his own government, which had a majority, made any technical changes and brought them to the House was in 2001. His government did not even follow the kind of road map the member puts out right now.

I would say, absolutely, if we have technical changes they should be made on a cyclical basis. As we said, because they are so technical, that makes sense.

To me this is all about priorities, the priorities that Canadians expect us to be addressing here in Parliament and the issues they need us to address.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct what the member for Peterborough just said in the previous question to the effect that transfers to the provinces would remain the same, including health transfers. On the contrary, the government has already announced its intention to reduce from 6% to 3% the rate of growth of transfers to the provinces. This change shows already that these transfers are not a government priority.

Another priority found in Bill C-48 deals with closing tax loopholes, which is a complex issue in the Income Tax Act. Let us not forget that it is the first time in a period of over ten years that we have a technical bill amending the Income Tax Act. In the last three of four years of their term, the Liberals had the opportunity to introduce these changes, but they did not do it.

Since 2006, the Conservatives have let income tax changes accumulate and they did not introduce any bill like this one, with the result that we now have a piece of legislation that is 950 pages long. The result of this neglect is that Canadian businesses, among others, and citizens, are experiencing much greater uncertainty. The rules are not clear, nor are the government's intentions, until an omnibus bill of this magnitude is tabled.

I would like to hear my colleague on the famous priorities of the Conservative government and on how it can deal so flippantly with an issue as important as taxation and the Income Tax Act.