Susan Whelan

[Petitions, October 24th, 1995]

The second petition calls on Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child through amendments to the Criminal Code.

[Petitions, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present four petitions that have been signed by the constituents of Essex-Windsor.

The first petition has over 2,400 signatures and is from members of the CAW local in Windsor. They urge the government to

implement an emergency surtax on the profits of banks and other financial institutions to pay off the deficit.

[Access To Information Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the hon. member for this proposal to extend the application of the Access to Information Act.

I am a firm believer that open government is essential to the preservation of the respect which members of the public give us as politicians and to the trust they place in their government. The Liberal Party is committed to the principle of open government.

I am not sure, however, this amendment is necessary. It is my understanding the act already provides for access to public opinion polls. Section 4 of the act provides that everyone has a right of access to any record under a government institution. In so far as opinion polls constitute such records, they are covered by the act. If specific poll results are not disclosed to the public it is because in specific circumstances a legitimate interest that competes with presumption of access is invoked. It should be noted the act performs a careful and complex balancing between a variety of interests. I am concerned that amending the act to address a specific and limited aspect of the act would disturb the various balances within the act.

In 1992 the trial division of the federal court pronounced on the question of release of public opinion research in the case of Information Commissioner v. Prime Minister. That case dealt with public opinion polls commissioned during previous constitutional negotiations. The decision of the federal court trial division of November 19, 1992 provides guidance on disclosure of such information.

In addition to section 4 of the act, the Treasury Board secretariat has issued guidelines for federal institutions on the release of public opinion polls. The Treasury Board communications policy amended last July provides that first, government institutions must make every effort to disclose results outside the formal resolution process prescribed by the Access to Information Act of public opinion research.

Second, in the spirit of the Access to Information Act, institutions are encouraged to make the final report of public opinion research available within 30 days of receipt and should resort to the 90-day allowance only if constrained by publishing requirements.

Third, in those cases in which a minister elects not to disclose the final report in response to an access to information request, the minister must send a letter to the information commissioner informing the information commissioner of his or her decision inciting the provision of the Access to Information Act that the minister has exercised. A copy of the letter will be sent to the Treasury Board for purposes of monitoring implementation of this policy.

With section 4 of the act interpreted by a recent court case dealing with opinion polls, and with a new government policy which guides government institutions on the disclosure of public opinion polls, it is not at all clear to me that there is a present and pressing problem with respect to the release of public opinion research that justifies an ad hoc amendment.

Another reason I would not support Bill C-309 is that the Minister of Justice has announced his intention to reform the Access to Information Act. I understand a review of how public opinion polls are disclosed or not disclosed to the public will be part of that review.

I trust the Minister of Justice will reform the act in providing for more open government, including greater access to polling information. I am concerned that Bill C-309 would amend the act in an ad hoc fashion.

It has been about 12 years since the act was first passed. A parliamentary committee and the information commissioner have both made extensive recommendations for reform. I believe it is time for a fundamental review that would look at all aspects of the act.

In addition I have concerns with specific details in this proposal. The requirement that every public opinion research contract be reported to the minister and to the Speaker of the House of Commons and that reports be tabled in Parliament or with the

information commissioner and published in the Canada Gazette seems like overkill.

An amendment that provides that no exemptions apply to the release of public information opinion research would have been sufficient for members' purposes. The media, citizens and parliamentarians are quite familiar with the relatively easy process of filing access requests. In any event the Treasury Board policy calls for informal dissemination public opinion research. New and duplicated reporting requirements merely add red tape and cost, which we can ill afford at this time.

Another problem I have with Bill C-309 is that it would apply to any department, branch, office, board, agency, commission, corporation or other body established by or pursuant to any act of Parliament or established by or pursuant to any proclamation, order in council or other instrument made or issued by or under the authority of the governor in council.

By defining which institutions are covered by this proposed amendment in this way the proposed amendment goes entirely against the way the rest of the Access to Information Act is structured. The act applies to all government institutions listed in the schedule, approximately 140. The purpose of listing the institutions is to make it clear to everyone which institutions are covered by the act. Going away from a list approach creates the possibility of confusing the issue of whether the act applies to a particular institution. It may mean having to go to court to find out whether the act applies to a particular institution in a given circumstance.

As a result of Bill C-309 some institutions not currently subject to the act will be subject to the specific amendment. For example, Canada Post is not subject to the act but will be subject to the proposed clause 5(1).

I am also concerned about the definition of public opinion poll, which I find extremely broad. It could include quantitative and qualitative research conducted among members of the public using a prepared questionnaire or interview schedule. A good proportion of this research would be of very limited public interest.

I do not believe Bill C-309 is needed. There is already a right of access to public opinion poll research under the Access to Information Act. There is recent case law that provides guidance to the government in disclosing such polls. There is a government policy on disclosing poll results. The Minister of Justice has stated his intention to reform the Access to Information Act.

Given all this, I do not think it is appropriate or necessary to proceed with an ad hoc amendment on the specific issue of public opinion polls. I have problems also with the fact the bill would introduce significant new bureaucratic reporting requirements, deviate from the way the rest of the act defines government institutions and potentially could apply to research of very limited public interest. For all these reasons, I cannot support the bill.

[Underground Economy, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Motion No. M-382 introduced by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

The issue of the underground economy is of concern to me and should be of concern to all Canadians. Most Canadians have been faced with an offer to pay cash for a lower price. When someone offers a lower price for cash and does not provide an invoice, at least two things happen: one, the consumer has no protection or recourse against poor workmanship; and two, governments lose revenue.

The greater the activity in the underground economy, the less revenue there is available to governments. Underground economic activity creates unfair competition for honest businesses. Jobs are lost and honest taxpayers are forced to pay more than their fair share of taxes.

I have spoken with the people of my constituency about the underground economy. Those who follow the law and pay their share of taxes do not like having to pay higher taxes because others are trying to cheat the system. Entrepreneurs who are trying to make an honest living say they do not like being at a competitive disadvantage to businesses and tradespeople who ask for cash payments to avoid paying taxes.

My constituents worry over how lost revenue is affecting the government's ability to maintain the social and economic programs so important to our well-being. When we accept the terms of a cash deal, what we end up doing is condoning a crime and promoting tax evasion.

As consumers, Canadians have to say no to offers of work for cash. It is in their interest to do so. First, work performed under the table means consumers are at risk if the work is poorly performed or the result is not of the quality expected. Second, as I said, it means taxes higher than they should be. Third, it means essential social services we all benefit from are being put at risk.

Businesses must recognize that in the end conducting business in the underground economy will do more harm than good. Honest businesses are put at a competitive disadvantage because they cannot offer a customer the same deal as that offered by someone who will do the work but not collect the taxes. Furthermore the reputation of an entire business sector can be damaged by just a handful of under the table entrepreneurs whose work is of poor quality.

I hear stories in my riding of Essex-Windsor about businesses that operate out of basements or backyard garages and only work for cash getting their referrals for jobs by word of mouth. These businesses usually give two quotes: a quote for doing work for cash and a second higher quote which includes the proper taxes. Many individuals and businesses engage in these illegal transactions as a way to avoid paying taxes. They think all they are doing is cheating the tax department but as I said a moment ago, their actions make victims of us all.

The negative effects of activity in the underground economy show up in the form of reduced essential savings and services, taxes higher than they would otherwise be, unfair competition and a reduced standard of living for the honest taxpayer. Governments cannot afford to allow this practice to go unchallenged. People have to know that there is fairness in the tax system, that honest businesses have a level playing field and that people who try to cheat the system will be dealt with appropriately.

The government has introduced measures for addressing the underground economy to ensure there is fairness in the way in which the tax system is being administered. The Minister of National Revenue's action plan calls on Revenue Canada:

First, to encourage voluntary compliance by making clear why compliance is important and explaining the consequences.

Second, to work closely with the provinces by setting up exchanges of information to better target and improve enforcement actions.

Third, to strengthen the department's program to identify non-filers and non-registrants.

Fourth, to establish special audit teams to focus on areas of high non-compliance: construction, home renovations, jewellery, hospitality, car repairs, and other service sectors.

Fifth, to work closely with other federal departments, key industry groups and professional organizations.

Last, to explore ways including legislative changes to improve reporting, to enhance the effectiveness of penalties and to improve audit and investigation techniques.

The results of the action taken to date are significant. As of last March 31 over $860 million, over three-quarters of a billion dollars, in additional taxes have been assessed as a result of the government's underground economy initiative. I should point out that the underground economy initiative is only one part of Revenue Canada's overall enforcement efforts, efforts which generated $3.7 billion in additional taxes assessed in the 1994-95 fiscal year.

The government has also established close working relationships with a large number of associations whose members know often from firsthand experience how the underground economy can hurt Canadian business. Revenue Canada has consulted with more than 240 groups, such as the Certified General Accountants Association, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Home Builders Association and the Direct Sellers Association.

These groups have described how revenues and jobs are being lost. They know how businesses face unfair competition from those who do not play by the rules. Consumers lose out when they get goods and services through the underground economy since they forfeit any guarantees of quality backed by reputable firms. With their assistance, Revenue Canada is refining its strategies identifying areas of non-compliance and exploring measures for improving compliance.

In my riding the department has been in touch with the Home Builders Association and is getting information that might be useful in identifying non-compliance.

Revenue Canada also has close ties with the provinces. Co-operation arrangements are in place with all the provinces. Revenue Canada has moved beyond the simple exchange of information and the department is doing joint audits with the provinces. It is sharing audit strategies, training materials and expertise. The provinces have supplied Revenue Canada with databases containing such information as PST registrants, liquor licences, building permits and vehicle registration information as well as the names and addresses of new and used car dealers.

There is also federal and provincial co-operation in terms of ensuring that taxpayers have information to help them voluntarily comply with the law as well as information on the consequences associated with non-compliance.

For example, Revenue Canada has carried out community visits with representatives of provincial tax administrations. During these visits, businesses are given information on the underground economy and information and assistance to help them comply with the tax laws. Departmental officials also ensure that businesses are properly registered for tax purposes and when necessary, encourage businesses to comply with the law where they are not.

Across the country more than 40 community visits have been conducted involving more than 10,000 businesses. The department has increased and targeted its audits to focus on areas of high non-compliance and strengthened its ability to identify non-filers and non-registrants.

In 1994-95 an additional $245 million was assessed through the non-filer program and an equal amount through the non-registrant program. Nearly 11,000 audits were completed in the high risk sectors which resulted in a further $90 million in taxes being assessed.

Revenue Canada has increased its publicity of convictions for tax evasion. During 1994-95 there were more than 170 convictions for evasion of income tax and GST. There has been a doubling in the number of voluntary disclosures as a result and the department now receives about 19,000 referrals a year from Canadians who are tired of their neighbours and friends not paying their fair share of taxes.

Revenue Canada's preferred approach is to encourage voluntary compliance. It works. Ninety-five per cent of all revenues are collected without the need for enforcement action. A great deal has been accomplished since the Minister of National Revenue launched his action plan for addressing the underground economy in November 1993.

While the government has introduced concrete measures for addressing the underground economy, it is not exclusively the government's responsibility. All Canadians must do their part, individuals and businesses alike.

Canadians need to talk about the negative consequences of the underground economy. They must resist the temptation and simply say no. I urge members of the House to carry this message back to their constituents. I urge members of the House to work diligently with their constituents to come up with the answers.

I would like to thank the member for Mississauga South for putting forward the motion allowing us to debate an issue of extreme importance to all Canadians. The motion has forced members on both sides of the House to talk about a serious problem. I am hopeful it will eventually result in those now in the underground economy returning to the legitimate economy. I am confident that we are making the right progress in dealing with the problem.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I rise today to present several petitions as requested by constituents of Essex-Windsor from Amherstburg, Maidstone and La Salle, Ontario regarding their views on sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions also requests that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions on two issues.

The first petition I received from my constituents of Essex-Windsor asks that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously.

[Smuggling, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I am pleased to announce that as recently as Monday, May 8 a customs detector dog identified 25 pounds of cocaine hidden in luggage at Pearson airport worth an estimated $5 million in street value. On Saturday, May 6 another customs detector dog uncovered $7.5 million worth of hashish at Mirabel airport. On April 29 Revenue Canada seized another $4.4 million worth of cocaine at Pearson airport.

That represents a seizure of $16.9 million of illegal drugs by Revenue Canada in less than 10 days. The minister, the customs officers and our fine nosed dogs, Shad and Buck, should be congratulated.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I hold over 6,000 signatures from the residents of Windsor and Essex county asking Parliament to repeal the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to include extreme drunkenness or incapacity as a defence to indictable offences.

These petitions, launched by the Victims for Justice Coalition of Windsor-Essex County, further request that Parliament recognize that society is obligated to punish those who of their own free will render themselves intoxicated and harm others.

I want to commend the coalition for its efforts in this regard. I am pleased to present these petitions. I am also pleased that this government has responded to the concerns of all Canadians on this issue with the introduction of Bill C-72, which is moving swiftly through the House.

[Gun Control, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, customs officials do their utmost at the border to ensure that all the laws are kept. They will continue to do so in the future.