Debates of April 7th, 2000

Health

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, there are private clinics for profit around the country. In some cases they are regulated by provincial legislation, such as in Saskatchewan where such clinics are prohibited from charging fees to patients for any service, or in Ontario where basically the same arrangement is provided for in the statute.

Let me stress that if there are private-for-profit clinics charging for insured services to patients, that would be against the Canada Health Act and we would take action. If the hon. member is aware of any such practices, I wish he would let me know and we will respond.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there are clinics which provide insured services but nevertheless, by paying a fee, people are able to get a service earlier than they might otherwise get it from a public system.

Given what is happening in Alberta with bill 11 and the prospect of a greatly increased significance of private clinics in the system due to bill 11, is the minister prepared to change the Canada Health Act and not just to stand by the Canada Health Act? Would he be willing to change the Canada Health Act if that is what is necessary to protect medicare from this growing abundance of private clinics within the system?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern that the hon. member expresses. However, I do not believe it is necessary to change the Canada Health Act because the principle of accessibility is there to be respected.

The concern is that on the ground in a given clinic uninsured services might be sold at the same time as insured services are provided in such a way that the principle of accessibility is threatened. If the hon. member knows of any instance of that, I would want to know because it could be troublesome in terms of the Canada Health Act.

Public Works And Government Services

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, another day, another story about the Prime Minister wasting taxpayers' money to bail out campaign donors.

Like a scene from The Godfather , Liberal donator Pierre Bourque, senior, needed a financial favour. Reports have said that the Prime Minister's cronies tried to force cabinet to accept the purchase of a Hull office building for almost $30 million more than the appraised value.

The estimates show that as of March 31, 2000, $70 million had been pegged for the purchase of Place Louis St. Laurent. How can the government justify such a dubious and blatant waste of taxpayers' money?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat for the hon. member that my department made a reasonable and fair offer to buy the building at a price that represents the value of the lease signed in 1991 by a Conservative government. I recommend that the member does some research to see who was the minister who signed that lease in 1991.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this government is not against breaking contracts signed by Conservative governments. It turfed the helicopter contract then bought the same helicopters. We know that the cheques may not have been written as yet, but it was the clear stated intention of the government to go against the wishes of the treasury board and pay off Mr. Bourque. It is obvious that when you get in the way of the Prime Minister's slush fund efforts, you will pay the price.

Treasury board civil servant, Peter Harder, who resisted the sale of the building at such an inflated price, has been transferred out of the department. Now that the Prime Minister transferred him out, does he feel that this is the best way for the government to function—

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member's premise about Mr. Harder is totally wrong. Mr. Harder has been promoted to another senior deputy minister's position. Second, the next premise in the hon. member's question is wrong because no deal has been made. A provision for a possible deal in the estimates is not the same as making a deal. By now the hon. member should realize that and, if he cannot, he should check with one of his relatives about how the original deal was made in 1991.

Cinar

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government loves a botched investigation. If it cannot do it itself, it messes up someone else's.

The RCMP is trying to get to the bottom of whether Montreal's animation company CINAR is guilty of tax fraud, but the government is refusing to co-operate. It is refusing to provide the RCMP with copies of CINAR's tax credit application forms. These documents are obviously central to the investigation.

Why is the government not co-operating with the RCMP investigation into this matter?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that under the law Canada Customs and Revenue Agency must keep taxpayer's information confidential until such time as charges are laid in a case, if laid. At that point information is transmitted to the police if and when charges are laid, and only then.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, do they have to keep that information confidential even from the police?

This government is rolling in so much tax revenue that I guess it does not care about a little fraud here or there. But the RCMP is interested in getting to the bottom of these allegations of criminal wrongdoing. It wants documents that only the government can provide. Why will this government not co-operate?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member and to provide him with additional information.

I draw his attention to subsections 241(2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, which clearly state, and I quote:

Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or other law, no official shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, to give or produce evidence relating to any taxpayer information.

That is clear.

Health

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, instead of restoring transfer payments to 1994-95 levels, the Minister of Health has decided to meddle even further in Canada's health care systems.

Yet, according to the Canadian Health Coalition, the government is footing only 13.6% of Canada's $61 billion health care bill.

How can the minister justify his approach to health care funding, with its single-minded focus on calling all the shots?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to transfers, it is obvious that we increased them by $1.5 billion in a previous budget. In this year's budget, we increased them by another $2.5 billion.

We are up to $31 billion, higher than ever, and we have said that we would contribute even more if an agreement were reached with the provinces concerning health care.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to justify its unacceptable intrusions into the health sector, the government is adding together equalization payments, the Canada social transfer, and tax points.

Yet, in February 1996, the National Forum on Health wrote, and I quote: “—the Forum considers the inclusion of tax points in the federal contribution to be confusing and unhelpful”.

When will the minister restore the Canada social transfer to the 1994-95 level, and quit trying to confuse the issue?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting that the transfer of tax points will not mean money in the pockets of provincial governments, she is mistaken

Cinar

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it will not release these documents on CINAR because of confidentiality.

The problem with that is that CINAR is accused of tax fraud. One would think the government would want to get to the bottom of this.

Why does it not just release these documents so the RCMP can do its work?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just said that this company has been charged with tax fraud.

If he wants to say so, perhaps he can do it outside the House. As far as I know, no charges have been laid.

Let me elaborate. Subsection 241(3) is clear. It states the following about communication where proceedings have been commenced. The only time taxpayer information may be provided is in respect of, and I quote:

criminal proceedings, either by indictment or on summary conviction, that have been commenced by the laying of an information or the preferring of an indictment, under an Act of Parliament.

In other words, charges must—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us review the CINAR tax fraud investigation.

A division of the Department of Canadian Heritage, as the public understands it, is withholding documents central to an RCMP investigation. It would seem to the average Canadian that the release of this documentation is in the best interests of the taxpayers of the country and the Government of Canada, unless of course the documents show that the mismanagement was at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Why will the government not release those documents to the RCMP?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, again I hate to inconvenience the member by suggesting that all of us have to live within the law, but that is an inconvenience we live with in a democratic society and I am proud of it.

Income tax information remains private for an individual until, and only if, charges have been laid.

Another member has said that the company has been charged. I challenge him to make that accusation outside the House. Perhaps the member would like to join him.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again in connection with the CINAR affair, the government House leader has just cited section 241 of the federal Income Tax Act as a pretext for why the RCMP is not empowered to enter and search the Canadian Audio-Visual Certification Office, the federal counterpart of SODEC, by virtue of the principle of confidentiality.

How is it possible to bring the entire situation in the CINAR affair into the open, if this section is cited as the grounds not to search?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of invoking a specific section, but a matter of ensuring that the law of Canada is respected.

The hon. member across the way must be aware—and if he is not, he can ask one of his colleagues—that it is important to preserve the confidentiality of tax files. He knows very well that a colleague of his has fallen victim to this.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader ought to know that, under section 231.4 of the Income Tax Act, the Minister of Revenue may waive section 241 when he deems this necessary.

Can the minister assure us that he will provide the RCMP with the necessary means to do its job properly, to borrow a favourite line of his colleague at Canadian Heritage?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier, and I will quote again.

Subsection 241(2) states the following:

Notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or other law, no official shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, to give or produce evidence relating to any taxpayer information.

This was cited in Glover vs. Minister of National Revenue, S.C. C., 82 DTC 6035.

Canada Development Corporation

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on July 6 the Ethics Counsellor acknowledges sending CDC minutes to the finance department and informing the department that the documents had to be released under the Access to Information Act. Two days later the finance minister sent a letter to the Leader of the Opposition pretending the department did not have the documents.

What is the department hiding? Why will it not obey the law and release the documents that everybody knows that it has?