House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.

Topics

Banking ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Georges Farrah Liberal Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC

Madam Speaker, I think we need more time.

In answer to the first question about the environmental assessment of the developing aquaculture industry, a moratorium, which had been in effect in British Columbia for the last 10 years, was lifted recently. We could not carry out environmental assessments on those sites while the moratorium was in place.

Now that the moratorium has been lifted, every project will be subject to an environmental assessment, in accordance also with the shipping policy in these waters. From now on, environmental assessments will be carried out on such sites.

Where first nation communities are concerned, I do not think there is a problem with developing aquaculture projects in native communities where it is badly needed. For instance, I went to Bras D'Or Lake, in Nova Scotia, not too far from Baddeck and Eskasoni, where first nations have set up aquaculture projects that are very productive and very beneficial for the economic development of their communities.

With any aquaculture project, we need to ensure that it is environmentally friendly--

Banking ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Banking ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Madam Speaker, on October 22, I asked a question in the House, and, given the time at my disposal, I will quote it for the benefit of listeners. The question went like this:

--when in doubt about whether or not employment is insurable, Human Resources Development Canada asks the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to study employment insurance applications.

Workers who wish to appeal the agency's decision can take their case to the Tax Court of Canada. Complainants must wait six to twelve months for their case to be heard. This is ridiculous.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the government hire more judges for the court so that workers can have their cases heard within a reasonable and acceptable timeframe?

Here is the answer of the national revenue minister:

Mr. Speaker, the federal tax court is available to any of those who wish to take their case to that place. I assure the member that the caseload is one which is of concern to everyone and is monitored carefully.

I was rather generous when I talked about six to twelve months, because some said in the House that it could take up to fifteen or even sixteen months.

I will only say that one of the problems is that Human Resources Development Canada itself should decide whether someone is entitled to employment insurance benefits or not. At the moment, people are referred to the Tax Court of Canada, which is the source of the problem because there are not enough judges. This was my question.

Now, this is what the minister answered:

Mr. Speaker, the federal tax court is available to any of those who wish to take their case to that place.

I believe the minister did not hear my question. We know people can go to the Tax Court of Canada; this is exactly what I had said. I said that people who wish to challenge decisions have to go before the Tax Court of Canada and the minister answered that the Tax Court was available to those people.

Hopefully, a month later, the minister has understood the question. I said that there were not enough judges. People have to wait 15 months. This is where the problem lies.

The parliamentary secretary will rise and give me an answer. I hope that the government has considered and understood the question I raised a month ago, on October 22.

I am aware that I may be the member who talks the most frequently about employment insurance in this House, but it is fortunate that, out of 301 members, someone does. People whose employment insurance benefits have been cut, who are without a salary and have no financial means to support their family must, believe it or not, wait 15 months to be heard by the Tax Court of Canada. That is where the problem lies.

I would like my colleague to give us a better answer and tell us what the solution is. What will they do to improve the system? I am only asking the government to improve the system so that people do not have to wait 15 months. I am waiting for the parliamentary secretary's answer.

Banking ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Oak Ridges Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst suggests that the Tax Court of Canada is experiencing delays in hearing appeals under the Employment Insurance Act and that the appointment of additional judges to the Tax Court would remedy this. This is an important question and I thank the member for raising it.

The Tax Court of Canada is an important national institution that prides itself on delivering consistently excellent service to Canadians. The stated mission of the Tax Court of Canada is to provide the public with an accessible and efficient appeal process, and to work together to maintain a fair and independent court.

The Tax Court has achieved its reputation for timeliness through a number of innovative approaches, including the development of an informal process for hearing matters under the Income Tax Act on an expedited basis where the amount in dispute is under a specified amount. This has contributed to the overall effectiveness of the system by ensuring that only the most complicated cases are heard.

The court has initiated a system to permit the electronic filing of a number of key documents and is committed to implementing this for all documents over the next few years. Electronic filing will allow a more rapid flow of information between the court and its clients. It will reduce the costs for appellants, facilitate document interchange between parties, and make information more readily available to all Canadians.

The Tax Court, like many courts across the country, has instituted a system of case management to ensure that cases are tracked and handled in the most expeditious manner possible. So committed is the court to ensuring the highest standard of service that it regularly conducts client satisfaction surveys so that it can continue to improve its service to the public.

In addition to these innovative and modern approaches to meeting its mandate the Tax Court is able to rely on a large network of deputy judges across Canada to supplement the full time complement of the court. The hon. member may be interested to note that the province of New Brunswick has two deputy judges, one to hear cases in English and the other in French.

As an element of the important constitutional principle of judicial independence, judicial control over matters relating to the judicial function are the responsibility of the judiciary, in particular chief justices and judges.

I want to assure the member that the Minister of Justice would give serious consideration to any objective indicators, provided either by the chief judge of the Tax Court or a representative of the tax bar, that would allot the court additional resources. I would also point out to the member that there are currently 23 judges on the Tax Court of Canada and four vacancies. The minister wants to act quickly to deal with those vacancies. An important issue has been raised by the member and I thank him for that.

Banking ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Madam Speaker, here are the only comments I might want to make in this respect.

The member said we have a good system and the system is working well. That is the way he started. In the end, the parliamentary secretary said that there are four vacancies. This is exactly the point I raised. There are not enough judges to handle certain cases and to be able to act in this respect.

The minister who answered on October 22 agreed with me when she said: “I assure the member that the caseload is one which is of concern to everyone”. She agreed that the situation was of concern. She agreed with me. And she added “--and is monitored carefully”.

This is exactly the point. I am happy to hear that the government is willing to appoint four more judges, but the problem is the length of time it will take. We are talking about serious cases. I am sure there are banks making billions of dollars in profit that have to wait a year to get their case settled. I do not find it very serious for a bank to have to wait a year. However, when it is a family that has been deprived of income, I find it very serious.

So I am certainly somewhat satisfied by the answer, but now I want to see action. Action is what counts. Words are nice but action speaks louder. And action means that people will be able to be heard without delay so that justice can be done. That is the important thing.

I am curious now to see how long it will take to hire judges and for them to start working to put an end to this cruel wait families have to endure. It is as simple as that.

Banking ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. As I indicated the government is committed to filling these vacancies of the court in a timely and responsible manner. I am sure the member will appreciate however that we need to find the best candidates. There has to be time for consultations and a review of those qualifications. There is no question that the government is interested in filling those four vacancies. It is important to do so but, again, in a timely manner. By reviewing the appropriate qualifications and getting those positions filled the issues that the member raised could be dealt with in an expeditious manner.

Banking ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

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

(The House adjourned at 6:46 p.m.)