Debates of Feb. 2nd, 1998

Ice Storm

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Shefford, a riding hard hit by the ice storm, I support the motion on the crisis we have just come through. I had already sent you a letter requesting an emergency debate on this crisis, which hit part of Quebec and eastern Ontario.

I am happy to learn that such a debate will be held and I would ask that the letter I sent you earlier be withdrawn.

[The Speaker]

I confirm that I received a letter for an emergency debate earlier today, but it would be moot now that the House in its wisdom has decided to take it upon itself.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 20, 25, 35, 36, 44 and 50. .[Text]

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Could the Minister responsible for Status of Women Canada list all expenses incurred by the coordinator for Status of Women Canada for the period January 1, 1995 to August 25, 1997?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Expenses Incurred from January 1, 1995 to August 25, 1997

Expenditure Category>1994-95>1995-96>1996-97>1997-98>Total

Travel>1,640>28,853>18,602>10,191>59,286 Training/ Conference Fees>52>6,516>625>1,195>8,388 Hospitality>983>388>508>141>2,020 Total>2,675>35,757>19,735>11,527>69,694

• Travel expenses of $13,278 (Beijing 1995) paid by Foreign Affairs and International Trade, of which $7,970 is based on information provided by and paid directly by FAIT

** Travel expenses of $10,191 (Sri Lanka 1997) paid by Canadian International Development Agency, of which $1,080 is based on information provided by and paid directly by CIDA.

NOTE: Minimal amounts paid via petty cash are not included.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

What is the exact amount of the debt incurred by the Ontario Wheat Board during the 1996-97 crop year that the federal government will be responsible for?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

The department provided a price guarantee for the 1996 crop year to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board under the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act. The 1996 Ontario wheat crop was severely affected by fusarium head blight which significantly reduced both the quality and quantity of the crop. As a result, despite the board's extraordinary and costly efforts to market the difficult crop, the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board incurred a deficit in its operation of the marketing pools. The average wholesale price of the wheat fell below the price guaranteed by the federal government under the former Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, now the Price Pooling Program under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, resulting in a claim under the agreement. An amount of $17.3M has been determined by an independent auditing firm to be payable to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Borad under the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act agreement.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

What is the maximum number of cases allotted to Immigration officials operating in foreign posts, specifically in the Ministry's Asia-Pacific offices (in Beijing), as regulated by administrative and departmental guidelines?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration does not allot a “maximum number of cases” or quotas to its foreign posts.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicate what is the average length of time taken to process an individual citizenship request emanating from departmental offices within the Asia-Pacific rim, from initial contact with the department to final approval or refusal of application?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Processing times for applications for permanent residence in Canada vary according to the immigration category of the application. For example, in 1997 the average time for applications by immediate family members—spouses, fiancés and children—was 8 months, for skilled workers it was 11 months, and for business cases it was 13 months. The average processing time for all immigrant classes was 11 months.

These times are based on the date that the prospective immigrant provides a completed application form to the overseas mission and do not include the additional time that is required to process a sponsorship request when required (family class and privately sponsored refugees).

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Who were the project recipients for Scientific Research Tax Credit during the years 1980-1985 and how much did each project receive through tax credits?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

The provisions of section 241 of the Income Tax Act on confidentiality of information prevent the department from disclosing personal client information.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

With respect to the estimates for the renovations and/or repairs that were planned for the office of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Val d'Or, Quebec, for each of the years covering the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years:

a ) what is the date of each estimate; b ) what date was the office closed; and c

) what is the cost of each estimate?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

a) The only cost estimate concerning any renovation/repairs to the Val d'Or detachment in the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years was done in September 1992. The goal of this cost estimate, done by the RCMP, was to be used as a budgetary planning for the following years. No work was done based on this estimate.

b) The final decision in respect to the office closure was taken on August 18, 1994, following a restructuring of the RCMP division. All closure activities began on this date and official closure for the Val d'Or office was in summer 1996.

c) The September 1992 cost estimate was approximately $300,000. Work covered by this estimate consisted mainly of an interior remodeling of the existing space in order to meet all health and safety codes and special security requirements by the RCMP.

Starred Questions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you would call Starred Question No. 43. .[Text] <*Question No. 43—

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

With regard to Section 6 of the Agricultural Marketing Program Act: (

a ) when will the Minister act to solve the problem that exists between the banks and the Advance Payments Program; and ( b

) what will the Minister do to ensure that funds are available to producers when they most need them?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

The cash advance legislation which is the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, Bill C-34, 35th Parliament, second session, royal assent April 25, 1997, provides a repayment guarantee that is conditional on the producer organizations respecting the terms of the act and the guarantee agreement, as laid out in section 6 of the Act. However, lenders have told the department that they are unwilling to issue loans at low interest rates for the program without an unconditional guarantee. We are currently working with the Department of Finance to explore options to address the concerns of the banks.

Following some initial delays, producer organizations have been able to negotiate loans with their banks under the program for this year in order to provide their producers with advance payments for their crops.

We expect that this matter will be resolved prior to the start of the next crop year and that in the future farmers will have their cash advances when they need them.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill 28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Western Grain Transition Payments Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997

[The Speaker]

Notwithstanding the statement I made prior to question period, I am now going to recognize the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-28 and, more specifically, to support the government's decision to increase cash transfers to the provinces under the terms of the Canada health and social transfer.

A measure of true leadership is the setting of government priorities. The priorities of this government are clear and definite.

Health and education are issues affecting every Canadian in every region. They are truly national concerns. It is therefore natural when federal finances improve for the government to give priority to investment in health and education by increasing transfers to the provinces in these vital areas. This is the type of investment that all Canadians recognize, the sort of federal-provincial partnership that all Canadians should support.

Under this legislation, cash transfers to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer are guaranteed to reach an annual $12.5 billion over the next five years. This represents an increase of $1.5 billion over the ceiling for cash transfers established previously by legislation.

However, I think it important we remember that the cash portion of the Canada health and social transfer is only part of the total amount of federal support to the provinces in the areas of health, education and social assistance. Including tax points, the total amount turned over to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer will exceed $25 billion and rise to over $28 billion in the coming years.

Tax points, you say? I know that appears abstract, obscure and even bureaucratic. Canadians must, however, take the trouble to understand, within our debates on national policy, what this is all about, especially if they want to understand the legislation of concern to us at this time.

Over the years, federal-provincial social programs have been developed, with the federal contribution taking two forms. First of all, there were direct cash contributions, but from 1977 on we also agreed to give tax points to the provinces.

And what is a tax point? It simply means that the provinces can get part of the taxes that would otherwise go to the federal government. In other words, provincial receipts go up while federal receipts go down, but the Canadian taxpayer pays the same amount of tax.

The provinces have a good reason to accept these tax points, because increased points go hand in hand with economic growth and each point, even with ups and downs in the economy, is worth far more today than when the funded programs were launched.

Think for a moment of the tax points transferred to the provinces in 1977 to support health and social programs. In 1977 these tax points represented some $3 billion dollars in receipts. Today, the figure is about $13 billion. In other words, if the federal government had not transferred these tax points to the provinces, we would have $13 billion more in our coffers.

Part of this amount could have been used to bring the deficit down faster. But I think, and I am sure that my government colleagues will agree with me, that this money belongs to those who now have it and that it is being put to good use. It helps finance a national health care system that is the envy of our American neighbours. It also helps support postsecondary education so that Canadians can acquire the skills needed to ensure their own success and their country's development in a knowledge-based global economy.

It seems to me that the results are obvious. Federal support for health and education, which are two major concerns of our society, is definite and reliable. As our economy grows and our financial situation improves, it will be possible to increase this support.

I am not trying to hide the fact that, in order to reduce the Canadian deficit, transfers had to be reduced. As you know, the cash component of federal transfers to the provinces accounts for approximately one in every five dollars in federal spending. It would have been impossible to reduce the deficit without including transfers to the provinces in our first mandate's budget restrictions.

There are, however, a number of factors I think we should consider in assessing the federal government's performance in terms of reduced transfers. First of all, initial cuts to cash transfers amounted to about 3% of total provincial revenues, or three cents on every dollar of provincial spending. I do not really think many Canadians would call that an excessive and exorbitant contribution to helping resolve the problem of the national debt, which affects us all.

Second, we, like other Canadians, have always been concerned by the future of our social programs, particularly our health care programs. Because of financial progress that was more rapid than expected, we can now reduce the size of anticipated transfer cuts, and Bill C-28 puts up to $1.5 billion in federal revenue dollars into provincial coffers annually.

Third, and most important, it must be recognized that these transfer cuts represented clear and real benefits for the provinces, not just losses. This may seem contradictory, but it is the plain truth.

Let us not forget that our federal deficit reduction program played an essential role in lowering Canadian interest rates, which have reached their lowest levels in 40 years. And although international tensions have raised these rates somewhat, they are still much lower than the rates we saw during the 1980s.

Businesses and the public were not the only ones in Canada to benefit from these lower rates. The provinces did too. First of all, the drop in interest rates made possible by our financial restraint translated into a reduction in the cost of servicing the provincial debt.

In fact, we have estimated that the lowered rates have resulted in a dividend to the provinces of $1.8 billion between January 1995 and December 1996. As for my province of Quebec, it saved about $645 million that year, more than any other province. In the last 14 months, these savings have kept increasing in every province.

The gains made by the provinces go beyond a decline in interest rates. Canada's low interest rates are the reason for the major increase in growth and job creation, in recent months. Our growth rate is one of the best in the world, while our unemployment rate for December was the lowest one in seven years.

Provinces are also benefiting, since they collect more taxes as more Canadians are working, businesses are in a better position, not to mention lower social assistance costs. In other words, our successful fight against the deficit helped improve the provinces' ability to invest in health care and education.

This is why I get annoyed at those who claim that our government acted unfairly and dumped its deficit onto the provinces. I see things differently.

While we did impose cuts, we did it carefully and we have always been as fair as possible. The provinces, and in fact all Canadians, benefit from the very real rewards that these federal cuts have generated.

I raised these issues because they are useful in the context of the legislation before us. However, before concluding, I want to mention other aspects relating to our government's commitment to health and education.

The increase in the CHST under Bill C-28 is the best example of our commitment, but it is not the only proof of our ongoing and progressive support for these essential social activities.

For instance, with Bill C-28, we are taking an important step towards helping Canadian parents set money aside for their children's education. This bill will increase the maximum amount that can be invested annually in a registered education savings plan for a child to $4,000 from the current $2,000. This raises the ceiling on these savings, the income from which is tax-free until used for educational expenses, to a level more in line with the growth in tuition fees and related expenses.

Our health care measures extend well beyond transfers under the CHST.

For example, in last year's budget, our government announced that it would invest $150 million over three years in order to help the provinces set up pilot projects, such as the new approaches to home care and drug coverage, so that they can find ways of improving our health care system.

In addition, the 1997 budget earmarked $50 million over the next three years for the introduction of a national health data co-ordination program. This will enable suppliers, planners and recipients of health care throughout the country to obtain accurate information on health at all times, including the most up to date information on the best treatments available.

I know that my remarks have gone beyond the framework of the legislation we are looking at today. However, no government legislation can be examined without a look at the general policy and undertakings of this government.

That is why I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-28. This bill shows our government's commitment to the vital issues of education and health care. It proves that the course we have chosen is one of ongoing partnership with and support of the provinces. It therefore deserves the support of all members of this House. I hope that that support will be unanimous.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I was very curious and listened closely because I wanted to see if the hon. member would mention Yukon or the territories.

The transfer payments to Yukon will be cut by $20 million. Our only weather station in the whole north has been taken away. There will be no flood warnings this year.

We have just had a huge event in Yukon. The only operating iron ore mine has closed, throwing over 700 people out of work. Changes to UI have meant that they will not be eligible for UI. The changes to the transfer payments mean that we no longer have the Canada Assistance Plan that would match that level of devastation by 50%.

We have cuts in transfer payments, which means that the Yukon government has less money to absorb on social assistance for those who are no longer eligible for UI because of the changes.

The compounding of the situation is not good for Canadians, and I am distressed that a member of Parliament did not even mention the territories.