Mr. Speaker, you are a man of your words. Indeed, last Friday, when 1.30 p.m. came around, you told me I still had 25 minutes and 54 seconds. I will not argue about the 54 seconds.
At that time, I was in the process of telling my Liberal friends opposite that the infamous discretionary powers have always caused the downfall of ministers. Most of those ministers who were caught red-handed, as I said, fell prey to some discretionary power. Never anything else. I had also shown how, when it comes to justice, the current government often applies a double standard.
I had then talked about the current scandals at HRDC. I was not, however, aware of the one my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont, announced today when he questioned the minister.
The minister was unable to give an answer, once again and as usual. She could not tell the hon. member for Rosemont that his name, his good faith, his position as an MP, had been made use of to divert funds that would normally have been allocated to his riding. The people of Rosemont were penalized, and theirs is not a wealthy riding. There are many unemployed people, many young people, many single parents, in fact poverty may well be somewhat more visible there than elsewhere. Funding for that riding got diverted to the riding of Saint-Maurice. That is purely and simply criminal.
I notice that the government House leader is seated on this side of the House. Probably so as to distance himself from what the people in his party are doing; I am pretty sure of that. It is sad. He probably realizes it, and that is why he is sitting on this side right now.
The bill before us, Bill C-10, is well intentioned, as always. I think everybody here wants to do the right thing. The bill stems from good intentions. We are always prepared to help others, our fellow citizens and, in this case, the municipalities. What bothers me, however, is the discretionary power the minister is taking upon himself.
Now there is another member crossing over, I think because members opposite are realizing they are in the wrong party. They are probably doing a wrong to the municipalities too. If this keeps up, sides will need to be changed, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if they are going to have a quorum over there, and if we will be able to keep sitting today.
This is a sad event. I personally was opposed to that and said that we must restrict this discretionary power that the minister is giving himself. For example, when the time comes to pay his taxes, the minister thinks “Here is a mayor in a small municipality where there is a federal property. He is not a supporter of our party, the great Liberal Party of Canada. Perhaps he is a sympathizer of the mean Quebec sovereignists”. Or it could be somewhere else in Canada. Perhaps the mayor of a given town is a friend of the Reform Party or of another party.
In such a case, the minister may be less inclined to meet his obligations and pay what he owes in lieu of taxes to the municipality. An opposition party must fight tooth and nail against this kind of initiative, because this always leads to injustice, and prejudice. Sometimes, when we realize that it is the case, it is very late to correct the situation.
This bill comes at a time when we are debating the clarity act. Our friends opposite claim to be the protectors of clarity, the champions of clarity in Canada. For them, nothing is ever clear, except what they do themselves. This time, experience obviously did not serve them well.
Take the definition of “federal property” at subsection (3) for instance. Even the Jesuits, who are famous for knowing everything, would have a hard time understanding this legislation. Incidentally, I must say that I have great respect for the Jesuits. The reverend who is protesting on the other side is a Jesuit, and I have a great deal of respect for him. I may not necessarily share his views, but he is a Jesuit and I respect him greatly.
Take a close look at the definition of “federal property”. It might be necessary to call in the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who understands everything even though he is not a Jesuit, because he is Jesus Himself.
Subsection (3) reads as follows:
(3) For the purposes of the definition “federal property” in subsection (1), federal property does not include a ) any structure or work, unless it is
(i) a building designed primarily for the shelter of people, living things, fixtures, personal property or movable property,
(ii) an outdoor swimming pool,
(iii) a golf course improvement,
(iv) a driveway for a single-family dwelling,
(v) paving or other improvements associated with employee parking, or
(vi) and outdoor theatre; b ) any structure, work, machinery or equipment that is included in Schedule II:
Unfortunately for those who are not familiar with how this works, schedule II is not included. One must go to the library to get it, and even a member of parliament cannot get it for free. The government has decided to save money. For some time now, we have had to pay to get the schedules of an act or the model law, the original act.
Ever on the lookout for savings, the Minister of Finance has now arranged it so that parliamentarians who want to do their jobs and research must now pay for the bills they have to debate, unless they get lucky and the act is revamped. Then the bills would appear on our desks.
Those wondering about schedule II will have to make a trip to the library. Maybe they will have it and maybe they will no longer have it. I cannot say. I continue with my quote: c ) any real property or immovable developed and used as a park and situated within an area defined as “urban” by Statistics Canada—
Talk about clarity.
—as of the most recent census of the population of Canada taken by Statistics Canada, other than national parks, national historic sites, national historic parks, national battlefields, heritage canals or national marine conservation areas;
So much for clarity.
Not all municipalities in Canada are able to call on a legal department to explain the difference between a taxable and a non-taxable federal property. Do those obsessed with clarity know whether or not the port of Montreal is a taxable federal property? I could not find out from the authorities who presented this to the committee.
Right now, when services are brought into our municipalities, when pipes, cables, gas lines and so forth are put in, generally both sides of the street are asked to pay half. But when it is the federal government across the street, it does not pay its share. So any owner across the street from the federal government is stuck, and has to foot the whole bill.
We know that government buildings or structures are rarely small 24 by 40 bungalows or one and a half story houses on a 60 by 100 lot. They are huge. National parks, for example, are immensely huge. Imagine the cost for the people of Quebec City or Montreal who have to pay when pipes are laid, streets are paved and sidewalks are laid in front of a federal building. They cannot say at the moment whether the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City, the port of Montreal or the airports in Sept-Îles, Goose Bay, Newfoundland or elsewhere are also included, and whether the government will pay taxes for them.
There is beautiful Fort Chambly built in my riding under French rule. For my friends opposite, who insist on clarity, I will be clear. In 1601, Champlain had been up what was called at the time Rivière aux Iroquois and is now called Rivière Richelieu, the Richelieu River, and had slept at Chambly. He had a premonition. He must surely have known that one fine day there would be a member of parliament for Chambly who would defend the people of Chambly.