House of Commons Hansard #92 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was devco.
Atlantic CanadaOral Question Period
Gander—Grand Falls Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
George Baker LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)
Mr. Speaker, regarding the so-called blip that the official opposition refers to and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation I think refers to which goes up in 1996 and 1997, the figures for ACOA core funding actually went down. The blip was caused by the TAGS program from the previous year.
The alliance party should align itself with some chartered accountants.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the RCMP officer responsible for the criminal investigation into the CINAR affair said that, if co-operation between the RCMP and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency did not improve, his investigation would be compromised.
How can the Minister of National Revenue justify his department's absence of co-operation, which will allow people who may be guilty of fraud to get off scot-free?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, once again, at the risk of repeating myself, because this question is becoming a bit redundant and I have told the House this several times, when a question concerns a specific file, as the minister responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency I am unable to comment.
As for the co-operation between the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the RCMP, I have always told the House that co-operation between the two organizations was exceptional in all files and that this co-operation must take place within the framework of the Income Tax Act, which protects confidentiality.
Finally, I wish to draw to my colleague's attention the press release—
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the House's attention to the statements of the investigator in the CINAR affair. This person had the courage to appear on television and say everything he did about the absence of co-operation, despite the possibility of reprisals.
I ask the minister how it is that there were memoranda of understanding between the RCMP and Revenue Canada for certain investigations but not in the case of CINAR?
Why are there no such MOUs in the case of CINAR? Who do they want to protect? Who is hiding behind this whole business? Who is the minister helping?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit sad to see the opposition trying to make political hay of such important matters as the confidentiality rules of the Income Tax Act.
I repeat: there is still good co-operation between the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the RCMP.
Also, and this is important, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has general authority for tax investigations in Canada and only rarely do we turn to outside agencies.
Finally, I would again like to draw the House's attention to the press release issued by the RCMP last week, which speaks for itself.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to RCMP Staff Sergeant Carrier, the best way to ensure that the copyright fraud investigation can continue is to make Revenue Canada a full partner with the RCMP in the CINAR investigation.
How can the Minister of Revenue tell us that he is co-operating with the RCMP, while at the same time refusing to enter into an agreement with it, which would allow access to Revenue Canada records?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, my response will no doubt sound redundant, but it is really the question that is, rather than the response.
I cannot comment on a specific case, because of a fundamental rule, the rule of confidentiality, which the government will always protect and which all Canadian taxpayers wish to see protected as well.
Second, in relation to this question, I have the impression that those on the other side have not looked at the RCMP press release of May 4, 2000. This press release states that there is a strong collaborative relationship between the two organizations, that the CCRA is co-operating with RCMP investigations according to the provisions allowed by the law, and that the RCMP is following the parameters—
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that Canada's tax cheats are protected from police investigations under the pretext of confidentiality imposed by the Income Tax Act?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, there are two elements here.
What I explained to this House, and to all of the Canadian public, is that there are two elements to this. The first is that, on the one hand, we must protect the principle of confidentiality.
The second is that, when there are problems relating to taxation, investigations are carried out, very competently, by CCRA officials. This is very simple.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in Boston. The Atlantic premiers want to talk health care but the Prime Minister wants to talk trade. So let us talk trade, because it is the trade agreement signed by the government that is triggered by Alberta's bill 11. The bill is now in its final form, the government has had seven months to study it and Canadians want an answer from the government. Will the government finally acknowledge that bill 11 triggers NAFTA? Yes or no?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I have assured the House time and again that we will do what is necessary to protect Canada's health care system. If and when bill 11 is adopted and implemented by the Government of Alberta, we will be vigilant to ensure as the Prime Minister has said that the principles of the Canada Health Act are respected. As the Minister for International Trade said last week in the House, we will ensure that Canada's health care system remains its own regardless of international agreements.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, back to NAFTA, the health minister says that he has raised NAFTA concerns with the province of Alberta. The trade minister says that there are no NAFTA concerns to raise.
It is the federal government that is responsible for NAFTA, yet it still appears to have no position. We are now days perhaps hours away from the passage of bill 11. Why has the minister not prepared a NAFTA response? When will the government come clean on NAFTA?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the minister said last week clearly that NAFTA provides the opportunity to Canada to protect its own health care system. Indeed that is what we are doing.
In terms of the Canada Health Act the principles are there to be respected. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if and when the bill is adopted and implemented, we will monitor to ensure that there is no threat to the principles of the Canada Health Act.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, a report obtained under the Access to Information Act confirms that the chief of the defence staff visited Canadian troops in East Timor and he had to be flown around in an Australian helicopter because our Sea Kings were not safe enough to fly him. This is despite the fact that the same helicopters have been used in theatre and despite the minister's repeated assurances to the House that the Sea Kings are safe.
Can the minister explain why the Sea Kings are safe for the lower ranks but not for generals, not for ministers nor the Prime Minister?
Robert Bertrand LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
I would point out, as the minister has mentioned on a number of occasions, that the maritime helicopters project remains our top priority in terms of materiel.
We are developing an appropriate procurement strategy that will allow us to buy materiel that meets our needs and to get the best value for money for Canadians.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in the House the Minister of National Defence told the House “We have a timeframe for replacement of the Sea King helicopters”. He is talking about five more years down the road, and we have already had people who have been flying those helicopters and losing their lives.
On what date specifically along the minister's timeframe will the government make a final announcement and call for industry bids? Is it today, tomorrow or next week? When?
Robert Bertrand LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that we have—
National DefenceOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. We want to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary's response.
Robert Bertrand Liberal Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC
I want to tell the hon. member that, since last year, an additional $50 million was provided, precisely to deal with the Sea King helicopters.
As I mentioned in my first reply, we are making good progress and things should be finalized very soon.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, completely contrary to the human resources minister's claim of transparency, we keep finding examples of her hiding information critical of her department.
The latest example is that six pages of an audit by a respected accounting firm pointing to gross negligence by HRDC were censored, taken right out before the report was released. How can Canadians trust a minister who has been repeatedly discovered hiding evidence of her failures?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, on the question of trust I would just like to refer back to questions that were asked over and over in the House by that party with regard to our six point plan last week. I was perplexed at how they got all their facts so wrong, but I discovered they had never even read the full and complete action plan.
It was on Friday of last week that a senior researcher from that party called and asked for a copy of the final report. They had never read it. They had not listened to me in committee as early as February 10. I must ask that party over there how the Canadian public can have any confidence in the questions they ask.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, considering that the entire report was released to the HRDC committee weeks ago, I am not quite sure why the minister thinks we have not read it. We have had it for weeks and we have read it.
Here is what the minister tried to hide in the six pages that she censored: HRDC paid claims without proper verification; its contracts are vague and ambiguous; cash balances and expenses are not monitored; financial statements are not reviewed regularly; and, most serious of all, the law of the land, the Financial Administration Act, was not upheld by the minister's department. Is the minister surprised that she has a $1 billion boondoggle on her hands?