House of Commons Hansard #225 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taxes.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
Reg Alcock LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the second report of the Canada-China Legislative Association regarding its first co-chairs annual visit which took place in China and Hong Kong from March 27 to April 9, 1999.
I wish to thank His Excellency, Mr. Howard Balloch, Canada's ambassador to the People's Republic of China, and his staff for their assistance, as well as officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 1, 1999, your committee has considered the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.
In conclusion, the committee was somewhat taken aback by the small allocation of moneys this year for the small craft harbours and those used by our fishery people.
Lou Sekora Liberal Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-511, an act to establish a national organ donor registry and to co-ordinate and promote organ donation throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill in the House that will establish a national organ donor registry. Unfortunately in Canada there is a critical shortage of donated organs.
This private member's bill will co-ordinate and promote organ donation throughout Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present to the House a petition from constituents of my riding who are asking, on behalf of all Canadians, that the government stop the plundering of the pensions of workers and retirees, and that it put an end to any measure that undermines the confidence and the morale in the public service, the Canadian forces and the RCMP.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition on behalf of the citizens of the general area of Peterborough who point out that an average of 4.5 Canadians are killed and 125 Canadians are seriously injured every day as a result of alcohol related crashes.
They point out that 62% of fatally injured drinking drivers in Canada have a blood alcohol concentration that is over double the legal limit of 80 milligrams per litre.
The petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the Criminal Code so that mobile digital breath test units are added to the list of approved instruments under the Criminal Code, that police are authorized to use passive alcohol sensors in impaired driving enforcement, and that any driver involved in a crash resulting in death or bodily harm provides police with probable grounds to request a breathalyzer.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 195, 213 and 222. .[Text]
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
With regard to the preparation of the budget presented on February 16, 1999: ( a ) what expenses were incurred by the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance for outside media advice, speech writing, and promotional and strategic services; and ( b ) what steps were taken to ensure that outside consultants were not able to use budget information for commercial purposes?
Tony Valeri LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance
As in previous years, the Department of Finance enlisted private-sector expertise to assist in the preparation of the 1999 federal budget and, more particularly, the government's efforts to communicate to Canadians the budget's contents and its possible impacts.
Moreover and again as in previous years, strict measures were put in place to ensure that those whom the department contracted were unable to use their pre-release knowledge of the 1999 budget's contents to realize commercial and/or individuals gains. Specifically, those contracted with knowledge of the budget's contents prior to its release are legally bound to adhere to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
Those contracted to assist the government with the prepqaration and communication of the 1999 budget and the xpenses incurred for said assistance were: Principium Inc., $44,000 for speech writing services performed for the months of December 1998 through February 1999; Earnsciffe Strategy Group, $60,000 for strategic services and advice provided from November 1998 through February 1999; HyperActive, $11,541.61 for on site technical support in February 1999 for the creation of interactive Internet presentations; and Magma, $17,575 for provision in February 1999 of an outside of government server used to broadcast the live budget speech over the Internet in real time. Magma did not have access to any budget inormation previous to its release.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
With regards to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans announcements on June 19, 1998, of a $100 milion program for measures to protect and rebuild salmon fish habitat on Canada's west coast is there a similar program available in Atlantic Canada that has the same four components of (1) establishing a permanent fund for habitat initiatives, (2) developing community based stewardship programs aimed at protecting habitat from further damage, (3) extending community restoration and partnership programs, and finally, (4) increasing public awareness of the problems affecting salmon stocks and, if so, how much money is spent in Atlantic Canada on this type of program?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
The $100 million program to rebuild west coast salmon habitat announced June 19, 1998 was part of a $400 million comprehensive program to rebuild the resource, restructure the fishery, and help people and communities adjust to the changing fishery. That same day the government announced $730 million for restructuring and adjustment measures for the Atlantic groundfish fishery.
While the west and east coast initiatives are both aimed at ensuring stable sustainable fisheries, they have been individually tailored due to the differences in the nature of the fisheries issues on each coast. On the west coast the major commercial fishery, salmon, is particularly dependent on healthy and productive fish habitat in freshwater streams which are more susceptible to the impacts of human development. For this reason a large portion of the west coast program is devoted to habitat conservation and enhancement. On the east coast, production for habitat is not a key limiting factor with respect to groundfish fisheries. As a result the adjustment measures are focused on reducing industry capacity trough licences retirement; adjusment measures to help current and former TAGS, The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, recipients become self-employed, get work experience, develop new skills or relocate; extra help for community and regional economic development, to be provided to Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for co-operative initiatives with provinces and other partners; and a cost shared early retirement program.
On July 17, 1998, the government announced $1.16 million in funding to support volunteer groups in their efforts to improve and restore local waterways. The funding is to be provided under the Canada-Nova Scotia co-operation agreement on economic diversification.
John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC
For each of the last two fiscal years, with the last fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, what is ( a ) the total number of income tax returns processed annually by Revenue Canada, both personal and corporate, and ( b ) the total number of people involved in processing these returns; and for this fiscal year what is the total number of returns that are being redirected to Shawinigan?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of National Revenue
For each of the last two fiscal years, with the last fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, the chart indicates (a) the number of personal and corporate income tax returns processed annually by the Department of National Revenue and (b) the number of people involved in processing these returns:
Fiscal year—Number of personal returns, 000 1996-97—21,432 1997-98—21,677 1998-99—22,075, estimate
Fiscal year—Number of FTEs* for processing 1996-97—4,110 1997-98—3,551 1998-99—3,604, estimate
Fiscal year—Number of corportae returns, 000 1996-97—1,110 1997-98—1,140 1998-99—1,201, estimate
Fiscal year—Number of FTEs for processing 1996-97—814 1997-98—820 1998-99—840, estimate
*Full-time equivalent, FTE
The Department of National Revenue is constantly updating the way it does business in order to improve client service and increase efficiencies. One example of such change is e-file for the electronic filing of personal income tax returns, which is now being used by over 25% of Canadians. Changes such as e-file, telefile and corporate e-file will reduce the workload in all of the department's processing centres. Rather than allowing these workload reductions to occur across all centre and suffer the resulting reduction in efficiency, the Department of National Revenue is redirecting the work from the Ottawa Tax Centre.
As announced in October 1996 the Ottawa Tax Centre has assumed a new role as a specialized technology site with a national call centre, as well as scanning and imaging systems. The processing of personal and corporate tax returns previously handled by Ottawa is being redistributed across the seven other tax centres located in Surrey, Winnipeg, Sudbury, Shawinigan, Jonquière, St. John's and Summerside. This will require some boundary adjustments for all centres. This change will ensure that the Department of National Revenue's processing operations remain efficient in processing the reduced number of paper returns.
The total number of personal income tax returns being redirected nationally is 3.9 million and the total number of corporate returns is 231,000. This year the total number of returns that are being redirected to Shawinigan from Ottawa and north eastern Ontario is 695,000 personal returns and 28,000 corporate returns.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
Mr. Speaker, on May 3, I reminded the government that the response to Question No. 189 was late. It is still late.
I was told at that time the government was answering 90% of the questions on time. I must point out that never once have I had a question answered within the 45 day period. In fact, of 11 questions of mine the government answered by May 5, it took an average of 127 days to answer them. The quickest response was 58 days.
As of Monday, May 10, today, I have three questions that have been on the order paper for more than 45 days: Question No. 189, Question No. 226 and Question No. 227. I would like to know if I have to wait another 100 days or so to get them answered.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know of the member's interest in Questions Nos. 189, 226, and 227. I will certainly look into them.
I have a new update for him in the area of petitions, having received well over 2,300 of them. We are running at 93%. In the area of questions we are running at 78%.
As the member knows, some questions involve consulting every department in government. Sometimes it involves going to one department, then going to another, and only then being able to go back to the first one.
We are working as hard as we can. I assure the hon. member I will look into the whereabouts of Questions Nos. 189, 226 and 227.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Shall the remaining questions stand?
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed; and of the motion that the question be now put.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998Government Orders
The Speaker
When debate was interrupted for question period, the hon. member for Elk Island had 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments.
Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say and I would like to ask him a question.
What is his view of the way the government actually does its accounting? Perhaps he could elaborate on that point.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, that gives me carte blanche, does it not? What do I think of the way the government does accounting? I think it does not do it right. It is disobeying the rules.
In fact, the auditor general has said as much. It is not permitted under the rules to charge expenditures from one year's budget to different years' budgets. The government is doing this continuously. According to its numbers it has put $11.5 billion into health care. That is the number its spin doctors like to put out.
If we look at the details, we see this one time payment of $3.5 billion being available to the provinces any time they want it. When most ordinary thinking Canadians hear that they think it is $11.5 billion plus $3.5 billion because that is the way it is communicated.
It is not explicit so I checked it out. The accounting methods are totally unacceptable. In the 1999 budget the government charged $3.5 billion against the 1998 budget even though it was already past. That is not acceptable. It cannot backload expenses. No business can do it. The government should not be able to do it. Then it forward loaded expenses like the millennium fund, about which I have already spoken.
Just to finish off on health care, if we look at what the government has put into the budget it is $2 billion a year on health care. That means $2 billion this year and $2 billion next year. That adds up to $4 billion, but the way it is being done is that the $3.5 billion comes out of that. It is not an extra amount at all. I have checked this out because I did not understand it. At a committee meeting I explicitly asked the officials to explain this to me.
It is also clear after we read the documents for the fifth time. We can finally understand that this is what the government is really saying. There is zero more in the budget. Next year there will be half a billion dollars more for health care. After that the government is talking about $2.5 billion and $2.5 billion and $2.5 billion. Most of us would think that is an increase of $2.5 billion every year. Wrong. It is an increase of $2.5 billion from what it was before the first five year plan started.
The government is taking an amount and milking it for all it can. Everyone thinks it is a big amount because the government is announcing the same amount over and over, but it is actually one amount being announced five times. I think that is dishonest, if I dare say that. It is communicating to Canadian taxpayers, to the citizens of this country, our voters, the people who want to put their trust in this parliament—
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say and I think he used the word dishonest. It is my understanding that that is an unparliamentary word. It is inappropriate in this case anyway.
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
I heard the word as well and I heard the context in which the word was used. The context was not attributing it to a specific member of the government, it was attributing it to actions of the government. In my opinion it was used in a parliamentary fashion.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I mean no offence, as I am sure the hon. member understands. However, I think that Canadian taxpayers have the right to know what is actually going on. The government's accounting methods are not correct. The auditor general has said so. We need to listen to what the auditor general says. It is his duty and it is the duty of all of us as parliamentarians to guard carefully the accounting and the expenditure of the money that Canadian taxpayers are forced to give to the government.