Massimo Pacetti

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance. In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, February 25, the committee has considered votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 30 and 35 under Finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, and reports the same.

(Bill C-243. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)

Second reading and reference to Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparednesss of Bill C-243, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (establishment of the Office of Victims Ombudsman of Canada)--Member for Nickel Belt

[Telecommunications Act, April 14th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-365, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act (Voice over Internet Protocol).

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the seconder of my private member's bill, the member for Halton. I would also like to thank the legislative counsel from the Legislative Services Branch of the House of Commons for having expedited the preparation of this bill.

In summary, the purpose of this bill is “to reduce legislative controls with respect to the economic aspects of the new telecommunications service called Voice over Internet Protocol, while recognizing the need for legislative controls of the non-economic aspects of the service”, such as basic 9-1-1 service, access by law enforcement agencies and services for the hearing impaired.

This is an issue of choice for consumers. If we want to nurture the thriving, innovative and competitive communications industry, we need to let the market forces take root. Many countries around the world have decided not to price-regulate voice over IP communication services. Here in Canada, we should not be in the business of picking winners. We need to ensure that Canada's telecommunications policies are modern and consistent with the government's objective to stimulate innovation and economic growth through smart regulation.

In Quebec alone, some businesses are already providing telephone services through Voice over Internet Protocol. Consumer demand is driving the development of this technology. The best thing to do is let the consumer choose.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the 2005 budget implementation bill, Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget which was tabled in Parliament on February 23.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I am making it my duty to insist on having this bill passed as soon as possible in order to be able to respect the wishes expressed by Canadians.

The finance committee in its pre-budget consultation report entitled, “Moving Forward: Balancing Priorities and Making Choices for the Economy of the Twenty-First Century”, made 33 prebudget recommendations to the Department of Finance when it tabled its report in December 2004.

This report was prepared based on the testimony the committee heard from individuals, groups and associations from across Canada. The report was not based on my personal views, nor the members' on the committee, but a collection of views of different industries and sectors. Budget 2005 includes many of the committee's recommendations, and I would like to speak on a few of these.

For example, the budget implementation bill would create a $700 million trust for the provinces and territories to invest in early learning child care programs and services. This amount is the 2004-05 and 2005-06 portion of the $5 billion over five years committed in budget 2005. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 27.

I will not go through all the committee's recommendations, but I want to highlight how many of the budget implementation items were recommended by the finance committee. Again, the finance committee's recommendations were based on all-party agreement by members.

The budget implementation bill also would increase the guaranteed income supplement benefits for low income seniors by $2.7 billion over five years. That recommendation was similar to recommendation 29 in the prebudget report.

The budget implementation bill would also provide $600 million in federal gas tax revenue sharing for 2005-06 for municipalities to support environmentally sustainable infrastructure projects, which was similar to the committee's recommendation 9.

The budget implementation bill would also establish a new agency under Environment Canada to manage the $1 billion climate fund which will provide incentives for the reduction and removal of greenhouse gases, which was similar to the committee's recommendation 8.

The budget implementation bill would also increase the amount that Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax. That was similar to the committee's recommendation 24.

The budget implementation bill would also increase the annual limits on contributions to registered retirement savings plans and other tax deferred retirement savings plans. This was not a committee recommendation, but was included in the Liberal portion of the report.

The budget implementation bill would increase the child disability benefit supplement to the Canada child tax benefit. This was similar recommendation 28 of the committee report.

The budget implementation bill would allow for a longer period for the existence of and contributions to a registered education savings plan in certain circumstances where the plan beneficiary would be eligible for the disability tax credit. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 28.

The budget implementation bill would increase the maximum refundable medical expense supplement. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 28.

There is a clause for emergency medical services, which I think is a slight technicality, that we did not address in committee. The tsunami relief was not an issue when the committee held its consultations.

The budget implementation bill would eliminate the corporate surtax and reduce the general corporate income tax rate. That was similar to the committee's recommendation 12.

The budget implementation bill would extend the scientific research and experimental development tax incentives to SR and ED performed in Canada's exclusive economic zone. This was not exactly pinpointed to what the committee recommended, but it is very similar to recommendations 17 and 18 in its prebudget recommendations.

We have the air traveller's security charge. We did not address it because we left that up to the transport committee.

One that is interesting is the budget implementation bill would address the phase-out of the excise tax on jewellery. This was addressed in a separate report on two occasions, one in the last Parliament and one in the last session before the House broke for its Christmas break. The finance committee again tabled a separate report in which it recommended exactly what the finance minister has proposed on the excise tax on jewellery. Therefore, we need to have this budget implementation bill approved and adopted.

Another area that the budget implementation bill would provide for would be to extend the application of the 83% goods and services tax/ harmonized sales tax for the rebate for hospitals to government funded non-profit entities that provide health care services traditionally performed in hospitals. This is very similar to what the committee recommended in recommendation 30. We recommended any type of help that health institutions could be given, they would take it. This one was very well received by the health care service people.

The budget implementation bill would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to facilitate the future addition of greenhouse gases to the list of substances under the act. This would allow the Minister of the Environment to regulate emissions and implement the proposed large final emitter regime and emissions trading system.

The budget implementation bill also would establish a technology investment fund to provide companies regulated under the proposed large final emitter regime with a compliance mechanism that encourages investments in greenhouse gas mitigation research and development.

It would also provide an additional $300 million for the green municipal funds, $150 million of which would be used to help communities clean up and redevelop brownfields, abandoned sites where environmental contamination exists. This is very similar to what the committee recommended in recommendations 7 and 8 and also what the Liberal Party highly recommended in its separate report.

The budget implementation bill would also introduce a new employment insurance rate setting mechanism under which the EI commission would have the power to set the premium rate, taking into account the principle that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover program costs. This was one of the recommendations the committee made in recommendation 25.

There are other areas that the budget implementation will address and that is the offshore agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, which were signed on February 14. The committee did not address this because it happened after the committee tabled its report.

There would be a transfer of $100 million to the province of British Columbia to battle the mountain pine beetle.

The last item I have on my list is to create a $100 million trust to help the territories meet the goals of the northern strategy, a joint initiative between the Government of Canada and territorial governments aimed at improving the quality of life of northerners. I do not think any member of the committee would have been opposed to that.

If I go through the list of recommendations, I have a list of 33 recommendations. If I go quickly through the list I can say that of the 33 recommendations of the finance committee, 7 recommendations from the committee were not addressed in the budget. Again, the finance committee is made up of members of all parties. The report was not dominated by only the Liberal members, but all members of the House.

The government is one that wants to govern. It has shown the openness and transparency to govern. If I am asked how, I would say by listening to what Canadians wanted.

Canadians told us what they wanted during the prebudget consultation when we prepared this book. The book was very detailed and provided the finance department with details of what Canadians told us. The finance department did a good job of listening to us. We owe it to Canadians to vote on Bill C-43, get it to committee and get it back in the House so the people of Canada can benefit from budget 2005 adopted by the finance minister.

[National Defence, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

We have learned today that a Montreal company founded by three former Canadian Forces fighter pilots has obtained a large contract with National Defence.

Can the minister tell us the role to be played by Top Aces Consulting and explain why this contract is a first in this country?

[Committees of the House, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-39, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to enact an act respecting the provision of funding for diagnostic and medical equipment.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2005, the committee agreed to report it with amendments.

[Climate Change, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's international reputation has contributed to the success of various complex environmental accords, such as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

By hosting the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, COP11, as well as the first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto protocol, MOP1, Canada will proudly continue to exert its influence on the world stage.

Delegations from 189 countries will meet in Montreal for what will be known as the Montreal Conference on Climate. Hosting this major conference on climate change is a challenge we are prepared to meet. As the Prime Minister said this morning, “It is in Canada's national interest”.

The federal government is demonstrating once again that Montrealers and Quebeckers have been well served by the Liberals.

[Committees of the House, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, which agreed on Thursday, February 10, 2005, to report it without amendment.

[Citizenship Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[Citizenship Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to Bill S-2, a private member's public bill before the House.

Bill S-2 seeks to amend Canada's Citizenship Act by completely eliminating the residence requirement for a certain group of people who lost their Canadian citizenship as minors and now wish to resume it. These people ceased to be citizens at the time they were minors because their responsible parent or parents in some cases acquired citizenship of another country. The contention is that this was not fair, that the minor had no choice in the matter at the time, and that therefore no residence requirement should now exist for people in this situation.

The truth is that parents make decisions on behalf of their children on many different occasions, including in situations which have important consequences. The bill before us today is therefore less about rectifying a perceived wrong than it is about simply changing the consequences of a choice made under the legislation that was in effect, which reflected the time when the decision was made.

Allow me to clarify an important issue. Canada's current Citizenship Act has a provision for people who wish to resume Canadian citizenship. To qualify to resume citizenship a person must demonstrate a commitment to Canada through residence. It is quite simply a commitment demonstrated by actually living in this country under Canada's current act. A person in this situation must become a permanent resident under immigration law and must reside in Canada for one year immediately before making a citizenship application. That is Canada's current law.

All former Canadians, whether they lost citizenship as minors or as adults, can resume citizenship in the same manner. We ask that all who lost citizenship, whether as minors or adults, are treated equally and that we keep our current citizens and residents safe.

What is being proposed in Bill S-2 is that there is no residence requirement at all, at least for a small number of individuals whose parents opted for citizenship in another country. We can all appreciate the desire to obtain Canadian citizenship, particularly if one has obviously lost it. Citizenship in this country has value and worth. Obtaining it has requirements. These requirements cannot be waived simply because a decision made by a responsible parent or parents in the past is perceived today as having been a bad decision.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to give further consideration to certain former Canadians, particularly when the circumstances of their loss involve actions of their parents. These minors lost their citizenship because their responsible parent or parents chose to immigrate and acquire another citizenship, not because of a distinction based on gender, family status or other such equality issues.

Nor do I believe it is responsible to vote in favour of a bill that would negatively impact the government's ability to manage access to Canada and protect the safety and security of Canadians. Bill S-2 does this by essentially bypassing, for certain individuals, Canada's processes that would normally check for serious criminal convictions overseas. The citizenship process presupposes that this step has been followed. It works in tandem with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to ensure that persons seeking to return to Canada are in fact admissible.

Let me be clear. This bill could allow serious criminals to reacquire Canadian citizenship and return to Canada once released. All Canadian citizens have the right to enter and return, and remain in Canada. We are opening the door to persons who stopped being Canadians many years ago, who have lived in another country, and who have committed serious crimes. This bill would allow them to resume citizenship.

A reasonable provision already exists to resume Canadian citizenship for people who wish to do so, in a way that allows the government to maintain the integrity of the program and to keep Canadians safe. I am therefore opposed to Bill S-2 or any special provision that will eliminate the residence requirement altogether for one particular group of people, and potentially place the safety and security of Canadians at risk.

[Social Programs, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, President Bush is proposing significant changes to U.S. social security. In the wake of reports that it is not fiscally sustainable, what assurances do Canadians have that the equivalent of U.S. social security in this country is sustainable?