Debates of March 24th, 1999

Bank Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be an interesting debate, but the member fails to realize there is a non sequitur here. It is not the foreign banks that are buying Canadian corporations; it is other corporations. Maybe if the member has another opportunity at a later date, he could phrase the question in a way in which it could be answered.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the question to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-67 is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

It being 5.45 p.m., does the House give its consent to proceed with Private Members' Business at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion.

Transit Passes

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have an opportunity to debate an issue of considerable importance put forward by the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

The member has put forward an interesting motion. He is proposing that we influence human behaviour by the manipulation of the tax code. The member is saying that if we want a person to do a , then we tax that less and the person will do a . If we do not want the person to do b , then we tax that more and b will happen less often.

There is a deep philosophical question here: To what extent are governments justified in using the tax code to manipulate behaviour?

In this particular case the argument is fairly strong that this may be a valid use of the tax code. The proposal is that if employers want to provide a benefit for their employees they can do so by providing them with free transit passes in the various urban communities of our country. In return for that the company will presumably use the benefit as a tax write-off because it is a part of doing business. On the other hand, the employee would receive it as a non-taxable benefit. That is the way I understand the motion.

Immediately when we look at this we can see that these are pretty laudable goals. It forgoes a bit of government revenue, but one can immediately turn around and argue that it saves a lot of government expense.

It helps us to meet our emission goals. It helps the environment, presumably, by reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Instead of having 100 vehicles with one person in each, we may have two or possibly three buses to haul the same number of people. If we ignore the black smoke that comes out of the diesel buses, then we have made an environmental gain. Certainly we have made a gain with respect to the amount of road infrastructure required, since 100 cars require more road space to move the same number of people per hour than a couple of buses on the same road. This looks like a good, laudable motion which has been put forward.

However, I have a few problems with it. They are not serious problems, but I have a few problems with this whole idea. I have a prior aversion to using the tax code to manipulate human behaviour.

When I lived in Edmonton I took the bus to work. I am one who thinks it is important to do our part environmentally. I know members will appreciate this. I could hardly wait until spring so I could ride my bicycle to work and did not have to use the bus any more.

I was a real pioneer in this area because I rode my bicycle to work, a total of some 6.8 miles, and I rode it before there were bike racks. I was the only one and people looked at me as if I were still a child because only children rode bicycles in those days.

However, I found it very convenient. It was an excellent physical workout. It was, except if a guy rode too close behind me, essentially pollution free. It was very enjoyable to be out in the fresh air. I always felt very good making my contribution to reducing the amount of pollution and the rate at which we were using up our non-renewable resources. I always thought that was a worthy goal. When I speak the way I am now, being in at least tentative favour of this motion, I am simply carrying through with the commitment that I have had for a long time.

I do not know how many millions of dollars we spend as taxpayers building roads and bridges. In fact, between here and the airport in Ottawa, in the last two or three years, the road was constricted while they were extending it, adding another lane to one of the bridges. It must have cost millions of dollars.

I am annoyed at that because when I look at the traffic on that bridge not only are there very few buses, not only are there many single passenger vehicles, there are thousands of vehicles with only a driver.

We have an insane rule which says that only those who pay the money can actually go to the airport to pick up passengers. So every taxi that takes a passenger to the airport is not permitted to pick up a passenger and bring one back. Therefore, half of the cabs are going empty in one direction and, of necessity, the others are coming back empty.

Just by the stroke of a pen we could have changed this and saved the taxpayers an awful lot of money, and basically cut the amount of traffic on that road in half.

I would have changed it so that at least the cabs would be permitted to take passengers both ways. In fact I might have even gone so far as to say it was required. But that is too much common sense for a government town, Canada's capital.

In principle the motion contains some very worthy goals. There would be a reduction in the amount of taxpayers' money required to build roads. It would certainly make a contribution to the reduction of pollution. However, I have a bit of a problem with respect to the application of it. As I said earlier, there are many people who either cannot use public transportation because of their location or, in some cases, because of the nature of their work.

Therefore, this would become a tax break to only one group of people, and I am a strong advocate of saying that everybody in this country needs a tax break. I would like to see tax breaks or tax reduction on a large scale because we end up having approximately half of our income confiscated by the various levels of government in this country. Every dollar that our citizens earn is cut in half. They get to keep only half of it.

I have mentioned before in the House that when I was a young man and we had a young family we decided that my wife would be a full time mom. In order to make ends meet, as expenses went up, I took an evening job teaching night classes. I used to teach Tuesdays and Thursdays. I always said that Tuesdays I worked for Trudeau and Thursdays I worked for my family. It was pretty well a 50:50 split on my incremental income. We are overtaxed in this country.

When the motion was proposed to have public transportation provided to employees without making it a taxable benefit I liked that. However, I would like to see that principle expanded and broadened in a very major way to apply to the millions of Canadians who are overtaxed in a very great way.

The other problem that I have is with respect to accessibility.

For many years now my wife and I have lived approximately 20 miles from the nearest bus. I know I need the exercise. It would be good for me to walk to meet the bus I am sure, but it would take quite a big bite out of my day. As a matter of fact, after we moved out into the country I had been riding my bicycle for many years and I was in fine condition. I put over 4,000 miles on my bicycle just driving it to work and back. I decided to drive my bicycle to work from our new country place, but unfortunately it took me two hours each way and I just could not spare four hours.

Perhaps we should be looking at that as well. Perhaps we should look at ways in which we can encourage our citizens to walk and to use bicycles. From a physics point of view, the bicycle is the most efficient form of transportation.

I regret that you are giving me the signal, Mr. Speaker, because I am just getting warmed up. However, I do appreciate this member's motion and I think that we should probably support it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me tremendous pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of my most hon. colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys who has introduced this motion.

I should say for the benefit of all those listening that when this member, with close to 20 years of parliamentary experience, brings forward a motion, we can guarantee that it is a good one and well thought out. With minimum debate we should support it because he is such a great member. In fact, this member is so highly respected in the House that I expect to see a statue of him when he retires so I can come by and remember him every day.

We are discussing Motion No. 360 which would make employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit. This is probably one of those motions in the history of the House of Commons where it is a win win win situation for absolutely everyone.

Millions of Canadian children every day go to school on a bus and return home on a bus. However, when these kids get older, what do we teach them? To drive a car. They forget about transit services and the fact that they have been riding a bus for the last 10 or 12 years. Now they are going to drive a car. It is absolutely insane that they stop using the bus once they finish their schooling.

By the year 2000, 80% of the Canadian population will live in urban areas with access to public transportation. Our trade minister said this in Ottawa in 1997. By increasing public transit use, all transit users will benefit: lower income families, women, students and the elderly. By increasing transit revenues and service, all taxpayers benefit from health care savings, infrastructure cost savings, and so on. Very few tax policies impact so favourably on so many people.

The other day in Nova Scotia the gas companies, in their relentless attack of greed on the people of Nova Scotia, raised the price of gasoline by 6 cents a litre. It is absolutely abominable that these corporations can get away with that.

I always say that the best way to get back at these corporations is to use the transit services. More people would love to ride the buses, but unfortunately in many areas, as my hon. colleague from the Reform Party has pointed out, there is no access to transit services.

Many employers would love to give this benefit to their employees. One of the reasons they would love to do that is that it makes a happier employee. They do not have to worry about getting into their car in the morning. They do not have to worry about finding a parking space. The employees would save a tremendous amount of wear and tear on their vehicles.

We would also, as a community of communities, save a tremendous amount and actually get to fulfill a promise now and then. This government could actually fulfill a promise, many of which it has broken. It could meet its commitments to the Kyoto agreement. It would be an absolutely wonderful thing for our environment.

When building new infrastructure in cities we would not have to build massive parking lots, which are always ugly. I do not think I have ever seen an attractive parking lot. I have been through a good part of this country and I have not seen one yet.

We have been getting a lot of occurrences of road rage. In areas like Vancouver, for example, every hour is rush hour. As my colleague from the Reform Party said, from here to the airport, 95% of the vehicles have just one driver. They then put in an exit sign to Red Hill Road or whatever it is and there are huge lineups. I have even missed a plane because of it. It is insane. There should be rapid massive transit in this country, especially in areas like this, but of a more frequent nature. That would benefit all of us.

It would also be a drastic decrease in our dependence on fossil fuels. We would not have to destroy the planet. Maybe we could actually leave something for our great-grandchildren. They would know that we did not have to burn every fossil fuel just so we could make it easy for ourselves to get from point A to point B. It would also bring a lot more safety to our streets.

Unfortunately, in Halifax, for example, there is an increase in incidents of people being hit at crosswalks. I noticed it here when walking from the hotel to Parliament Hill. A lot of people just narrowly miss getting hit because people in their vehicles are in a rush to get somewhere. I watch people get off the buses and they are happy and generally more easygoing because life has been good. They sat down and read a book or spoke to their colleagues in the morning. They are much happier employees. I believe most employers would honour this type of motion.

I should put in a plug now for all the transit workers in this country who wholeheartedly agree with the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys that this is an excellent motion. It would create employment in the transit field. It would create employment for their long term security. It would also help out our elderly, those who are disadvantaged and many of our students who cannot afford to get from one area to another, who could then spend the money they have on more important things like their books or tuition. Maybe they could even go and have a glass of beer now and then. Who knows what students do these days? We would have to ask the pages.

If this motion is passed this House will have shown a terrific responsibility toward the future of this country and toward all citizens by showing leadership, the leadership that the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has just displayed by bringing forward this motion.

I am very happy to hear that our colleagues in the Reform Party will be supporting it. I understand that our colleagues from across the House may be supporting this motion as well.

[An hon. member]

It is an individual decision.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Exactly. It is an individual decision. We know that the hon. member has an awful lot of influence with the leader and many other members of his party even though he sits on the backbench like me.

I wish to concur with the member. This an honourable and very good motion. It would do an awful lot of good for this country. It is one that should get the unanimous consent of everybody in this House.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys on his November 4, 1998 motion. It as important than it is topical.

In fact, greenhouse gases represent one of the greatest challenges facing the planet for the next 100 years. They cause adverse climatic changes affecting all nations, not just Canada, but every country in the world.

In Canada we have quite a challenge ahead of us. We undertook in Kyoto to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. We were already over 13% behind target. We will therefore have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over the coming years.

Transportation generally accounts for one quarter of all greenhouse gases. If we can concentrate on the issue of transportation and public transit, together we will make a huge contribution to the debate on climatic changes.

In fact, public transit has become a key issue. In all our urban centres—whether larger centres where the problem is even more serious, or smaller ones—all our roads today are completely clogged with traffic during rush hour.

North Americans have a real love affair with automobiles. But, more and more, urban stress, the stress of taking one hour and sometimes two to get to work in the morning, is beginning to get people thinking about the whole issue of public transit.

We have to provide them with a means to be able to shift from the personal automobile to massive public transport, because, as I mentioned, the issue of public transport is closely tied to climate change.

Under the climate change secretariat, the government has set up 16 issue tables that are looking at all the various questions, including transportation and fiscal and economic incentives. The various stakeholders, the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipal governments and Canadians at large, have joined these issue tables. Therefore my colleague's motion is timely and topical. The issue tables are going to report in the fall. It is important that we consider the question of mass transit, of providing tax benefits for transit passes.

It is interesting to know that in 1993 a study by the U.S. General Accounting Office showed the drawbacks and benefits of a tax transit program. In the drawbacks, is the whole question of cost, of whether we should give tax exemptions for this particular program or another particular program. It seems from the study that the benefits far outweigh the downside. Out of 150 U.S. federal agencies, 75% now have a transit benefit program. Among those agencies, which represent thousands of employees, the people who are using mass transit are encouraged to continue to do so. In that crucial 25% of agencies, where the employees use personal automobiles to get back and forth to work from large urban centres, the transit benefit pass system showed that nearly a quarter of them shifted from using personal automobiles to mass transit.

The study showed that if the program shifted from half of the federal agencies to all federal agencies, if it shifted into the private system and if tax benefits were given to corporations to encourage workers to take mass transit, we could wean at least 50% of the total personal automobile population from private transit to public transit.

What a tremendous goal, for all kinds of reasons: the declogging of our roads, the reduction of pollution in our cities and in all our centres of population, and the social benefits, especially the health benefits.

This motion is timely. It is important. It has to be carried out. It is an incentive for the government, as the issue tables are now in place and are discussing these various subjects, to pick up the motion, which I hope will be supported the great majority of members of parliament, and to give more momentum to the benefits of transit passes.

I believe that all of these various issues that touch on the environmental question are not just environmental issues. They are also cost cutting issues. As I mentioned, they touch on health side and the social side of our lives and on the economic benefits as well. As a country, one thing we never do is to add up the massive cost of keeping our roads in shape, especially given our climate, and of keeping our individuals in single driver cars day in, day out. There are massive costs to the country as a result of pollution and of road repairs, as well as social costs. These costs are never accounted for in our taxation system. We should put back some of that money into a productive and constructive system of transit passes.

I believe the motion before us is a cost cutting issue that is a quality of life issue. It is fitting and propitious that it is before us today. We should consider with great seriousness the motion before us, both the pluses and the minuses. I think we are going to find that the pluses are going to greatly outweigh the minuses.

Again, I congratulate my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for having brought this before us. I hope we support it with a massive vote when it comes up for a vote.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak on this private member's motion presented by my colleague from the NDP, for whom I have great respect.

We will support this motion because this is a win win win situation. The only gamble the federal government takes is a potential loss of revenue which to my knowledge would be small. It is the responsibility of other levels of government and individual transit properties to market their services according to this new policy.

Revenue losses can occur only if transit properties are successful at encouraging businesses to participate. The impact of success on ordinary Canadians, economically, environmentally, and on our health, will be tremendous. Also, it is a real window of opportunity, because the balanced budget has increased the finance department's ability to examine and invest in new strategies that promote sustainable transportation practices.

This is a rare opportunity for the federal government to effect public policy at a local level. This tax exemption is one of the few financial instruments available to support transportation demands and management efforts and is one of the easiest to implement. This measure is supported by social, environmental, business, labour, health, transit, political and municipal organizations across Canada, representing a wide variety of interests.

Forest fires, floods, ice storms, cyclones, extreme temperatures, smog days, high UV reading days and children with asthma have opened Canadians' eyes to the dangers of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The tax exemption would be an immediate concrete action, proving that the federal government is serious about working toward a sustainable future.

It is a reality. The federal government is unable to meet its international obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Provincial governments are struggling with the high cost of health care due to pollution related illnesses. Municipal governments do not have the resources to maintain and expand transportation infrastructure. Canadians can no longer afford to support an indefinite increase in single occupancy vehicles and yet they have little incentive to use public transit.

Transportation is the largest single sector source of Canadian carbon emissions, 32%. It accounts for 30% of energy used and 65% of petroleum consumed. In cities where public transit is available, 50% of transportation related emissions occur due to cars and light trucks. Only 10% of Canada's 9.1 million commuters use public transit. This was reported by Statistics Canada in 1994. Today the number might be a little higher, but I do not think it is really that much higher.

Support for this initiative continues to grow steadily. Encouraging the use of public transit is no longer viewed solely as a transit issue. It is a health issue, a social issue, a pollution issue, an environmental issue and an economic issue.

At a national level this proposal is a solid foot forward in the battle to meet our Kyoto obligations. It is a proposal that makes sense. It is cost efficient and has been proven to be an effective incentive in other countries, most notably the United States.

New riders are defined as those changing their primary commuting behaviour, but current riders were also found to increase their transit use by 25% to 30% after receiving transit benefits.

The bottom line is that single occupancy vehicle use is reduced when an employer provided tax exempt transit benefits. The same GAO report quoted by finance discusses the limitations of the report in following paragraphs. Employees surveyed were receiving an average of $21 per month in transit benefits.

It should also be noted that because employers are not currently supplying transit passes except in some rare instances there is no existing revenue to be lost. The revenue can only be lost if the transit pass is substituted for taxable wages. All other revenue is not lost but forgone.

This is a huge difference when we look at the cost of other initiatives that may require immediate funding from existing budgets. This revenue that is forgone does not happen immediately but will be spread over many years as transit properties begin marketing these incentives.

Taxation is already effectively used to discourage some behaviour while encouraging others. We have taxes increased on alcohol and cigarette use, tax credits to all companies for land replenishing costs, tax reduction for charitable and political donations. This tax exemption is a proven incentive in the U.S. to use public transit.

Ground level ozone, the smog, has increased by 20% and that was from a report on advancing the dialogue on sustainable transportation in Canada, 1996. Four hundred Toronto residents die prematurely each year due to poor air quality. Ozone is a pulmonary irritant that results in inflammation of the lungs, decreased lung function and decreased resistance to infection.

Transportation related air pollution is particularly harmful to people at risk, young people, the elderly, those with asthma or chronic lung and heart disease.

By 2010 the number of cars on the planet will double and the number of vehicle miles travelled will triple. Again this is from a report on moving the economy from a conference held in Toronto in 1998.

One of the greatest economic and environmental challenges now facing the world is control of carbon dioxide, CO2, and other greenhouse gasses that threaten to destabilize climate and lead to global warming. Rising sea levels, regional aridity, drought and extreme weather events cause human displacement, severe regional food shortages and losses that exceed the financing capabilities of the insurance industry.

Government response to date will not meet our international obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto protocol. That is why I am urging members from both sides of the House to support this motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to speak to private members' initiatives. I am a very big fan of private members' bills and motions because they provide the ordinary member of parliament, most of us, an opportunity to raise issues which we feel will promote and stimulate dialogue and discussion on issues which we otherwise might not deal with in terms of government business.

It gets people thinking. It gives them an opportunity to demonstrate the thinking behind and the philosophy behind some of the things we are doing. It is very easy in this place to argue why we should not do something.

I think the strength of Private Members' Business is it gives people an opportunity to argue why we should do something and why we should find ways. Do not tell me why we cannot, tell me how we can.

I am very pleased to speak to this motion because we could certainly argue it on an environmental basis. However, if we wanted to speak against this motion, we could clearly deal with it totally on a tax basis and come to a different position in the context of only taxation or in the context of only the environment, or in terms of any other impacts this may have.

There is no question this proposal has some merit and should be considered by the House. Motions are not binding on the government. They are simply to consider the advisability of an idea, in this case that the government should consider making employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit. It is quite straightforward. As has been clearly laid out by other speakers, the proposal contained in the motion is not simply a taxation matter. It is also very much an environmental matter related to climate change, an issue which is extremely important to the House and which will be a major item as we enter the new millennium because of our commitments under the Kyoto agreement.

I wanted to deal with this motion on behalf of the member from Kamloops in the affirmative. I want to speak in favour of this motion. The Government of Canada has announced the establishment of a climate change secretariat. We have done a number of things which I think will advance the issues. I know the government is working on a comprehensive approach to the environmental aspects of the matter before us. It is part of the solution. It is not part of the problem. It is an interesting perspective to raise.

There is no question as we adopt strategies and move toward implementation the important strategies will be those that are in a co-ordinated fashion so that there is an efficiency and an effectiveness in terms of making changes in policy. It would be very easy to say this is premature, that it pre-empts somehow the process in place on the environmental side. Any time is a good time to talk about ideas. That is exactly what this motion has done.

I am aware of a couple of arguments that could be opposed. The one about being premature is a valid argument. In the context of advancing the dialogue, advancing the knowledge and kind of raising this issue, maybe even getting it to committee where we can have experts to further evolve the thinking and the knowledge on the issue that has been raised, in all its broad context I think it is a good thing. It is a good thing for the House. It is a good thing for Canadians.

There is an argument that one could make that the proposed measure would be unfair to individuals who are not supplied with employer paid passes. That is quite true. I was mentioning to a colleague that this is an issue which tends not to be as inclusive as we would want simply because there are not public transit systems in all parts of Canada which would even allow businesses to take advantage of some sort of tax exempt status.

It does raise the interesting point about philosophy of providing benefits or supporting consensus initiatives or objectives of government. Do we have to treat everybody the same? Does everybody have to be treated exactly the same? Or, is it that we are trying to promote equity or equality of benefits? If you had two children you might give one a book because they are a good reader. You might give the other a chemistry set because they want to get involved. You treated them equally because they both got something that maybe brought out the best of their talent but you did not treat them the same.

I think in this context we have an item which admittedly may have more of an urban thrust to it. Yet it has some linkages which make it important for us not to dismiss it simply because it is not universally accessible and relevant to all Canadians. I think it is one of those arguments we could go either way on. I think we as parliamentarians always want to be as open as possible with regard to broader implications and maybe the philosophy of approach to dealing with issues that Canadians feel are important as we enter the new millennium.

Another argument brought to my attention was that the bulk of the assistance of non-taxation of employer paid transit passes would accrue to individuals who already are using the transit system and therefore it would not be an efficient way to increase the ridership of our transit systems in our major centres.

I suspect that is the case. I think it would be somewhat difficult to determine how many employers would start providing tax exempt passes, if this were to come to pass, and whether it would have the impact on people.

Maybe people have made up their minds. Maybe there is a price elasticity here when using one's car. There are really not very many options. I think we have cases right across the spectrum.

The real point is there is a broad range of issues that would have to be balanced. A motion like this helps to probably identify the circle of issues to be considered not only on this motion but generally the thinking we have on a lot of matters that come before the House. There are conflicting interests or there are competing interests with regard to almost everything that comes before us.

The laws of Canada are by their very nature discriminatory. They have to be discriminatory. If there were no discrimination in the law then there would be no need for the law because everybody would be treated the same, and we do not have laws and policies which try to treat everybody the same.

We have certain benefits, for instance employer paid health care benefits, which are not taxable benefits in the hands of employees. Dentists et cetera have brought this to us. There are so many people who are directly or indirectly covered by employer paid plans that to make that taxable may have an adverse consequence in terms of the number of people making use of health care services.

It is discriminatory because those people in Canada who do not have employer paid health plans are left to their own devices, either to buy insurance themselves or to pay as they go for the services they require. They are all subject to a deductible and only get a modest break on our tax return system for medical and dental and vision care expenses that would be incurred directly on their behalf. There is a discrimination there.

One of the things I had suggested is that for those who do not have group life plans which cover the broad range of health services, maybe there should be a super or an extra tax benefit or deduction, those kind of things.

With regard to the tax exempt status of bus passes, yesterday on the news I saw that Northern Telecom and I believe the transit system in Ottawa have kicked off a one month pilot on this very thing where the employer is providing those passes. The Ottawa transit system announced that it needs to increase its ridership by some 70% over the next few years to maintain the efficiency and service levels it presently enjoys simply because of the changing of this region.

There must be at least a dozen different angles or issues on this. I believe it provides an ample opportunity for members from all sides of the argument to be engaged in debate, which is one of the most important reasons we have private members' bills and motions.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity at least for a few minutes to comment on Motion No. 360 by my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I will just make a couple of key points.

I certainly support his motion and whatever we can do to encourage a public transit system, get people off of the roads. Certainly as someone not in a huge urban area, I have no problem acknowledging that if larger urban centres can put something in place to have fewer vehicles on the roads, decrease emissions within their areas, we can have some kind of benefits such as a tax exempt bus pass benefit.

As the member for Mississauga South indicated, there is not equality throughout the system. Northerners have a northern remoteness allowance and we get a tax exempt status for remoteness in some areas. It acknowledges that Canadians recognize there is diversity and we need to reflect that in the actions we take.

Seventy-three per cent of Canadians are in favour of this type of legislation. I think the comment that it is already taking place in a pilot project in Ottawa is an indication that there is certainly support for this type of a program within Canada. Canada needs to work very hard in meeting its Kyoto commitments. This is certainly one way of doing that. The number of large urban centres that would put this type of a practice in place could certainly go a long way to helping Canada reduce its emissions and meet those Kyoto commitments.

I want to thank the House for these few minutes. I commend my hon. colleague. Hopefully the House will support the motion unanimously.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of Motion No. 360 is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a question and he responded by declaring that my comments were absolutely false.

I represent my constituents in this House. My constituents call me with their problems and I raise their concerns in the House. When the minister accuses me of making false statements, he is calling my constituents liars. The minister should pay more attention to what farmers are saying about his programs than what his bureaucrats are telling him.

Last Friday I asked the minister “The disaster application forms are 40 pages long and accountants are charging farmers between $500 and $1,000 to fill them out. Why is the minister giving western grain producers more bills to pay instead of the disaster assistance they desperately need?”

My constituents are telling me that the AIDA application forms are not even available in printed form yet. I checked the Internet, found the application forms and counted the pages for myself. There are 50 pages, not 40.

I checked with a few accountants in Saskatchewan and asked them how much it was going to cost farmers to have the accountants fill out these AIDA applications. One accounting firm in Regina that does thousands of returns for farmers said the charges for filling out an AIDA application would be about the same as filling out an application for the Alberta farm disaster program. That is $500 to $1,000. Is the minister saying that his AIDA application is simpler than Alberta's?

The minister said “It is so simple. Just transfer information from one form to another”. The minister's statement is an absolute falsehood.

Here is what accountants who do thousands of returns for western grain farmers are saying. The information a farmer needs is more than just his tax return and his NISA forms. Accounting firms told me that grain tickets or permit books are needed as well as their crop insurance records and documentation to prove their level of inventory.

Producers who are not a part of NISA will have another eight pages of forms to fill out. Accountants say producers cannot use the cash basis but need to determine what their inventories were on January 1, 1998 and then again on December 31, 1998. Accountants say getting the accurate records to comply with the accrual method on the AIDA forms is going to be quite a struggle. The form asks not only how much wheat a producer has, but what grade and protein content it is.

Even when the AIDA forms are filled out, there is no way of knowing if that is how much compensation the farmer will receive. These forms are directly tied to NISA. The farmers' NISA numbers might not reflect the same numbers that the bureaucrats have.

Also the timeframe given to complete these AIDA applications in Saskatchewan is June 15. That is too short. Accountants say it will be a struggle to get all of their producers' forms filled out by that deadline.

Farmers are getting into seeding season and it is going to be extremely tough to get farmers off the tractor and into the accountant's office. In Ontario and Alberta, farmers have until July 31 to fill out their applications. Why is the federal government putting such a strict deadline on the forms coming from Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

One accountant said that these forms are extremely complicated and that it looks like a make work project for the bureaucrats in Ottawa. The whole package could have been much simpler.

Farmers are telling me that when they see the forms, they get extremely frustrated. Many wonder if it is worth taking the time to fill out the AIDA application. They feel they will not be entitled to anything anyway because of the way the program is structured.

The AIDA program does not take into account any bills or outstanding lines of credit that a farmer may have. As a result, the AIDA form is not an accurate representation of a farmer's financial situation. This final point is very key.

My final question is why did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food create a make work project for bureaucrats and accountants instead of a simple cost effective system that the farmers were asking for.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, first of all we should straighten out just how many pages we are talking about. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has stated 40 to 50 pages. In actual fact the number of pages for the AIDA form, if the farmer is enrolled in NISA, is seven pages. The rest are instructions. There are an additional five pages if the farmer is non-NISA, with the rest being instructions. The number of pages may be relevant in one way but very irrelevant in another. The actual form is from five to seven pages.

The basic information needed is revenue and expense data filed for income tax purposes for the current year and the preceding three years. Everyone with a farm business has this information already on hand.

This year the tax forms also serve as the NISA application. The forms now fill three functions. They can do their income tax, their NISA and their AIDA. There is a limited amount of supplementary information required for AIDA. The added information relates primarily to the changes in inventories, accounts payable and accounts receivable and is essential to ensuring that the applicant receives the appropriate payment. Let me provide two examples.

First, let us consider a farm which had a major production loss in 1998. The cash receipts will not be down that much because the farmer will be selling the inventory on hand, emptying the barns or the bins. Inventory decline must be reflected in AIDA or the payment will not reflect the true loss.

Second, those in difficulty will leave bills unpaid. This must be reflected to determine the true loss.

Finally, if a producer has an accountant for income tax and NISA, it should not cost too much more to transfer that data to the AIDA application form. The cost of hiring an accountant need not be overly excessive.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, various Liberal members like to claim that they are friends of the farmers. This is interesting because in each of the last two budgets the finance minister never allowed the word farmer to pass his lips during his speeches.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should tell his Liberal colleagues that many Canadian farmers are facing a full-blown income crisis which is getting worse day by day. Predications are that realized net farm income for Canadian farmers will drop as much as 40% in the year just ended.

Grain prices last year were at the worst level since the Great Depression and hog prices were not much better. We saw some farmers giving their hogs away to food banks because they were being paid next to nothing for them.

In December the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promised a contribution of $900 million from Ottawa to be supplemented by $600 million from the provinces. Now there is a clear indication that the bureaucrats are fiddling around with the program design to ensure that Ottawa will pay less than it promised.

The minister says that the program will not cover losses or negative margins. It means if farmers actually lost money as they did in northwestern Saskatchewan because of the drought, those losses are not covered. These farmers say that this program will do nothing for them.

The minister is also going to deduct from his payments to farmers any contributions the government has made to the net income stabilization account, NISA. By setting up this program the minister will pay about $600 million or even less, not the $900 million he promised as recently as December.

I should mention that the forms the government is sending out to farmers, as another hon. member has stated, are long and complicated. A lot of farmers are throwing their hands up in the air and saying to heck with it.

Another problem is that the provinces are being forced to pay 40% of this program. That is not fair. North Dakota or Minnesota are not paying disaster relief to American farmers; it is Washington. And it should be Ottawa, not small provinces like Saskatchewan, that foots the bill to help our farmers through trade wars. Our small provinces cannot afford to take on the treasuries of the United States or Europe.

Until the late 1980s Ottawa took major responsibility for safety net and disaster programs. This Liberal government has walked away from its responsibility. The Liberals have slashed spending on agriculture by 60% since 1993. The money they plan to spend on the disaster relief program is just a brief two year blip. By the year 2000 the Liberals will again be spending less than they did last year. In turn, it is much less than what they had spent in 1993.

In addition, our farmers have been impacted by the falling commodity prices, as everybody is well aware, but their increased input costs have compounded the financial squeeze that is driving our families away from their farms. This government should immediately investigate the input costs in agriculture, the unrealistic fuel costs, the whole issue of concentrated control of our food supply, as referenced by the Western Producer recently, and claim it as food clusters.

Farmers have played a key role in the deficit reduction of this country and the restoration of the balanced budget this government is so proud of. It is time for Ottawa to put back money into agriculture. We in the NDP believe that Canadian farmers need stable incomes. Our federal caucus intends to keep the pressure on the agriculture minister so that a solid sustainable farm income disaster plan will be there not just for one or two years, but for the long haul.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I must say this question goes back to November 26, 1998. A lot of things have happened since the member asked the minister the question.

I have addressed the length of the application, which has been fairly well exaggerated. The amount of money is $900 million plus $600 million, $1.5 million federal-provincial, 60:40 cost shared because the jurisdiction is a shared jurisdiction.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial colleagues announced after their meeting on February 23 and 24, Canadian farmers now avail themselves of comprehensive income disaster protection. Whatever commodity they produce in whatever province, agriculture producers will be eligible to receive government assistance if their gross margin falls below 70% of their three year average.

The spirit of federal-provincial co-operation and our sense of urgency, given the gravity of farm income difficulties, meant that the new agricultural income disaster assistance program was developed very quickly and expeditiously.

As of March 5, application forms were available in electronic format and in hard copy a week or so later. This is quite an achievement.

The national program will not be delivered in isolation of its existing instruments. AIDA is built on the substantial protection already offered by other safety nets, including NISA and crop insurance. The design and administration of AIDA includes several built-in incentives to take full advantage of the existing safety nets. This encourages farmers to get actively involved in the management of their own risks.

Similarly, the disaster program will be delivered in full respect of existing provincial initiatives. Where a provincial program decreases the cost of AIDA by enhancing producers' incomes, this will be taken into account. It was agreed that producers should not be compensated twice for the same income shortfall. Ways were found to accommodate and build on other initiatives with the same purpose as the national disaster program.

In closing, I am very satisfied with the progress that was made in such a short time. Farmers impressed upon us the urgency of the situation and the government has taken action.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 4, I asked the Minister of Finance a question about shipbuilding. The Minister of Industry replied to my question. He did not answer satisfactorily in my opinion. On several occasions, I had questioned him in committee.

On October 28, 1997, he replied that it would be better to ask the Minister of Finance, who would perhaps be in a better position to answer my question about shipbuilding and tax credits. Similarly, on April 22, 1998, the Minister of Industry told me that many issues were not the responsibility of his department, but rather that of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions or the Minister for International Trade.

On March 4, I directed my question to the Minister of Finance, but the Minister of Industry replied. What can we do? I note that, today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is likely to be responding, because he is the only member I can see at the moment.

Are we to give up and be content with the government's game of ping-pong and incomplete responses? We can see easily that the Minister of Industry relies on the Minister of Finance. The latter does not want to intervene, because he already has interests in Canada Steamship Lines. The Minister of Transport says he no longer controls the St. Lawrence Seaway following privatization. As for the Minister for International Trade, he has often been unable to answer our questions on the interventions of the Export Development Corporation. When he finally did answer, it was some two years later, on the Spirit of Columbus . In this context, I would like to know who I should speak to in order to get a response, if not action.

The Liberal government has not yet managed to explain why it is refusing to harmonize federal tax measures with those of Quebec. It has yet to explain why, by taxing the tax advantages of the shipbuilding industry, it is obliged to cancel the beneficial effect of the tax deductions offered by Quebec in order to stimulate this industry.

The government has not explained why it does not deign to propose measures of greater benefit to shipbuilding. It has yet to say why it is refusing to establish a real policy on shipbuilding, as all the representatives of the shipping industry have been asking it to do for months.

I plan to continue my campaign in favour of a real shipbuilding policy, which I began a few months ago. I am very pleased to see that more and more business people, union leaders and politicians are taking up the cause.

I am particularly pleased at how this issue has brought people together. Two examples are the coalition of opposition parties I formed on December 8 in Ottawa and the coalition of unions the Davie Industries union managed to get, two groups of stakeholders that are beginning to ask the government serious questions.

I take this opportunity to urge people to send in the postcard calling for a genuine shipbuilding policy in Canada. Since no postage is required on letters to MPs, I particularly urge the residents of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière and other citizens throughout Canada, in the maritimes and British Columbia, as well as in Quebec, along with the unions, to send it in. We must show that Canadians are not happy with the national shipbuilding policy the Minister of Industry says he has and that he says he knows nothing about. He is forever passing the buck to other ministers, and we never get an answer.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière has given me the opportunity to speak to the subject of shipbuilding.

The federal government acknowledges the important contribution the marine industry makes to our national economy. As well, I must reiterate that the government currently maintains a generous package of measures which, in conjunction with provincial policies and sound industrial practices, benefit shipbuilders.

These measures are: a 33.5% accelerated capital tax allowance for Canadian built ships; a 25% duty on most non-NAFTA ship imports; domestic procurement on a competitive basis for all government shipbuilding and ship repair needs; Export Development Corporation financing for commercially viable transactions; and a very favourable research and development tax credit system.

We acknowledge that despite this support the industry continues to face considerable challenges in international markets. For instance, in December 1997, in an OECD workshop on shipbuilding policies, it was reported that a substantial overcapacity exists in the shipbuilding industry and that this overcapacity would grow to around 40% of the estimated world capacity by 2005.

The Canadian shipbuilding sector went through a voluntary rationalization process that culminated in a more streamlined and viable industry. The government participated in this industry led process by contributing nearly $200 million between 1986 and 1993. Through reorganizing and streamlining its operations over the past decade, the Canadian industry has been able to improve its productivity levels even with the forecast world overcapacity and has been successful in obtaining some international sales in specific markets, such as tugboats.

In summary, substantial support has been provided to the shipbuilding industry in the past and we continue to support it through a variety of initiatives. If the provinces wish to supplement our initiatives, as has been done by Quebec and Nova Scotia, they are free to do so.

The comments concerning the Minister of Finance made by the opposition and by the president of Davie Industries workers' union are completely false. As is the case for all cabinet ministers, all such assets are placed in trust under the control of a trustee. It is the trustee who has the final say. Consequently, there is no conflict of interest.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.)