Debates of Feb. 7th, 2002

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the 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 one petition.

Committees of the House

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

Essentially, the committee requests that the federal government make a reasonable contribution to the province of New Brunswick, in order to help them translate municipal texts, as asked for by the court.

Income Tax Act

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-430, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child care expenses).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill. I would like to thank, in passing, my colleague, the member for Laurentides.

Essentially, this bill would allow a person carrying on an active business on a regular and continuous basis—basically, independent workers—to be exempted from the general rule by which the spouse with the lower income can deduct child care expenses.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area concerned about the war in Afghanistan.

The petitioners deeply mourn the tragedy of last September and condemn the perpetrators of the atrocities. They deeply mourn the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and commend the United States for showing compassion to the Afghan people by dropping food rations from airplanes.

The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to put a hold on Canadian military action. They earnestly request that the U.S. and Great Britain place a moratorium on military action against Afghanistan. They ask that the United Nations enter into negotiations to allow emergency UN relief aid to be distributed. They call on the Canadian government to request that further actions against the Taliban and others in future be carried out by the United Nations in accordance with international law.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by over 500 people from my riding of Lanark--Carleton and elsewhere in Ontario and Quebec.

Arsenic and chromium are listed as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act yet chromated copper arsenate in pressure treated wood continues to be used in decks and children's playgrounds. It is proven to leach from the wood and is a serious health hazard.

The petition calls for parliament to immediately ban chromated copper arsenate from pressure treated wood products.

I pay special tribute to my constituent, Deborah Elaine Barrie, for all her hard work in raising awareness of the petition.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 89 will be answered today.

Question No. 89—

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

With regard to the Departments of Transport and Fisheries and Oceans’ port and harbour divestiture program and the planned divestiture of the Billings Bay Float: ( a ) when was the Billings Bay Float put in place; ( b ) why was the Billings Bay Float put in place; ( c ) why was the Billings Bay Float offered to the Billings Bay Float Society; ( d ) when was the Billings Float offered to the Billings Bay Float Society; ( e ) when did the Billings Bay Float Society respond by a letter of intent; ( f ) how was the letter of intent inconsistent with the objectives of the port and harbour divestiture program; ( g ) when did the Departments formally withdraw their offer to divest the Billings Bay Float; ( h ) why did the Departments withdraw their offer to divest the Billings Bay Float; ( i ) why did the Departments reject the Billings Bay Float Society's letter of intent; ( j ) when was the Billings Bay Float removed from Billings Bay; ( k ) why was the Billings Bay Float removed from Billings Bay; ( l ) who used the Billings Bay Float as a place of refuge in storms; ( m ) what alternate safe moorages exist for kayakers, canoeists, local residents, weekend-sailors and others in case of storms; and ( n ) what was the annual maintenance cost of the Billings Bay Float?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport as follows:

(a) 1948;

(b) The float was built as a public float;

(c) The society expressed an interest in acquiring the property in a letter to the minister dated November 5, 1998. The letter was referred to as a letter of intent and stipulated that the society would be under no obligation to operate a public port. The letter of intent was not signed by Transport Canada;

(d) Discussion between the society and Transport Canada were initiated early 1998. The society then expressed its interest in a letter of intent dated November 5, 1998. In its April 28, 1999 correspondence, Transport Canada declined the November 5, 1998 offer from the society and identified the amount available for an operating contribution for a public facility, or as an alternative suggested that the float could be acquired at market value;

(e) The letter from the society referred to as a letter of intent was dated November 5, 1998, and was not signed by Transport Canada. No reply was received to Transport Canada’s letter of April 28, 1999;

(f) The November 5, 1998 letter submitted by the society stipulated that the “local entity not be obligated to manage, operate or maintain the port as a regional local port open to the public”. The divestiture program requires facilities to be operated as a public port for a specified period unless the facilities are acquired at market value;

(g) In this letter of April 28, 1999, Transport Canada declined the letter of intent but identified the amount available for an operating contribution for a public facility, or as an alternative suggested that the float could be acquired at market value;

(h) The society’s letter dated November 5, 1998, which was referred to as a letter of intent, was not consistent with the principles of the national marine policy;

(i) The society’s letter of intent was not consistent with the national marine policy;

(j) In October 1999;

(k) In August of 1999, Transport Canada informed DFO that it had no further use for the Billings Bay float and offered the structure for removal from the Billings Bay location. The offer was passed on to the Harbour Authority of Pender Harbour, which leases and manages three area public fishing harbours on behalf of DFO. The harbour authority, now the owner of the float, relocated it to its Whiskey Slough site to help reduce overcrowding and for additional berthage for commercial fishers and other public users;

(l) There is little information on the use of the facility as it was not a staffed facility. A log book that was located at the site is reported to have shown 30 entries for the period of 1994 to 1996;

(m) A number of docks are available on Nelson Island including Hidden Harbour, Strawberry Islet between Cockburn Bay and Billings Bay, and numerous docks line the shores in Blind Bay; and

(n)

• 1995-96 was the last time this site incurred expenditures. Other expenditures were incurred in the 1999-2000 site inspection but were not considered maintenance costs.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Privilege

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are discussions continuing among the parties today. I believe you would find unanimous agreement in the House that this matter should stand adjourned for the time being. We will return to it when we are able.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent in the House to adjourn debate for now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

When the House last considered this matter the hon. member for Kings--Hants had the floor. There are six minutes remaining to him in the time allotted for his remarks.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I usually cannot even say hello in six minutes, but I will try to be as brief and concise as possible. It is difficult to be concise and limit one's criticisms of this budget because there are so many areas of fiscal policy for which to criticize the Liberal government. It has seriously failed to deliver to Canadians some vision for the future and some plan on how Canadians can achieve the goals and successes that many individually and collectively are seeking and at a time when some of our best and brightest are leaving Canada.

We have an unprecedented level of brain drain. As an Atlantic Canadian and as a Nova Scotian, I understand the notion of brain drain because for decades we have seen people leaving Atlantic Canada and going elsewhere within Canada seeking opportunities. Now we see that happening in provinces like Ontario.

Canadians are seeking opportunities in the U.S. and elsewhere because of the greater levels of opportunity and the disparate levels of taxation. In a general sense, as they pursue their dream of a higher standard of living and greater prosperity for themselves and their families, those goals are more easily attainable in other jurisdictions than in Canada.

Since 1993, the government has done absolutely nothing to build a fiscal foundation upon which Canadians can build their futures. In the last debate, the leader of my party, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, posed a question to the Prime Minister. He asked him to name one accomplishment of his government since its election in 1993. The Prime Minister was unable to mention or present one major policy initiative or success that he had as a Prime Minister.

The fact that for the past nine years we have virtually had a cruise control caretaker type of government has come at an extraordinary cost to Canadians. That is reflected of course in the 20% loss in the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar and a pay cut for every Canadian. The dollar reflects the lagging productivity rates in Canada. Therefore, we have to ask this question. What would we do differently as a government to address the productivity issues and lagging productivity levels?

Clearly, if the government were on the ball it would introduce a productivity agenda, with productivity focused tax reform, not just tax reduction but substantive tax reform addressing some of the most pernicious taxes in terms of their impact on growth, opportunity and investment, more specifically capital taxes, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. It would also look at some of the other profit insensitive taxes like payroll taxes and would move toward more aggressive reductions in those areas.

Further, it would look at regulatory reform to address some of the regulations which are hindering and impeding growth and prosperity for Canadians. We have one of the highest regulatory burdens of any country in the industrialized world. High regulations have the same impact on growth and opportunity that high taxes do, and taxes that do not make sense. Just to give one example, the federal government ought to work more closely with the provinces to address the issues of interprovincial trade barriers.

We have team Canada missions where we send Canadian parliamentarians and business leaders to other parts of the world to promote freer trade, yet we do not have free trade within Canada. Maybe we should have a team Canada to Canada mission. Clearly, it does not make any sense from an economic perspective to deny Canadians and Canadian business the opportunity to achieve comparative advantages within their own country by having these anachronistic interprovincial trade barriers.

Beyond that we have to address government spending. The auditor general pointed to 16 departments with out of control government spending. When faced with an opportunity to find some waste in a $130 billion budget, the minister failed to do so. He also failed to address some of the priorities of Canadians.

Health care, national security, particularly in a post-September 11 context but before as well, the Canadian military, farmers, agriculture, all these imperatives were ignored in the budget. Health care is in a crisis across Canada because the Liberal government has neglected it and has cut the transfer payments since 1993. Never has it been in more of a crisis than it is right now.

My province of Nova Scotia does not have the tax base that some wealthier provinces have. When there are dramatic Draconian cuts to health care transfers to the provinces, we are hit particularly hard, especially when we consider the age of our population compared to some other provinces. On those demographic issues we are hit doubly hard.

I urge the government to stop focusing on polls and focus groups and start focusing on the priorities of Canadians in the long term and the success and prosperity of Canadians in 10 years time as opposed to what the focus groups and polls are saying next week.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his speech. He hit on some very important messages. Is the member aware of a very recent decision by our most compassionate Liberal government? It claims to be the party of compassion but when it comes to revenue collecting and that sort of thing, it is about as compassionate as a coral snake.

A number of constituents are having a real problem meeting their commitments on requirements for income tax. The revenue department is coming down hard on those who are desperate, causing a great deal of chaos for all of us. If anyone says that they are not having that kind of a problem, they are not telling the truth.

Is the member aware that the revenue department has suddenly had a revelation to hire 960 new employees to collect revenue and to audit those people who unfortunately are having a very tough time, namely small businesses and farmers who are in dire need?

I would like to know what his comments are with regard to a government that would spend extra money to try to pull more money out of the already overtaxed, overburdened Canadian. How does he feel about the government's wonderful compassion?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wild Rose is right. One thing the Liberal government tries to do sometimes is pretend it has some sort of monopoly on compassion. That is simply not the case, particularly when the government does everything it can to strengthen the ability of the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency to wring every last penny out of the taxpayer.

Look how complicated the Canadian tax code is. In a lot of cases, when taxpayers get into trouble, it is not because they are trying to cheat the system or doing something dishonest. It is because they cannot afford to hire the tax lawyers and tax accountants required to fill out the tax form. The fact is we have a tax code that is too complicated and a government that is too hungry for tax revenue.

At the end of the day, average Canadian taxpayers are very frightened when they receive a letter from the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency saying that they will be audited or that there will be an investigation. They do not have the legions of lawyers and accountants that the government and its agencies have. It is very difficult for taxpayers to defend themselves against the tax department or the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

I share the concern of the hon. member about this. I have seen, as I am certain he has seen, among constituents individual cases of this type of abusive behaviour by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and the absolutely unfair treatment of people.

A psychological evaluation of the impact of various types of correspondence was done a few years ago. It said that a letter from the government saying that the individual would be audited had about the same psychological impact as a letter informing the person that a relative had died. Perhaps there are relatives that we would probably sacrifice before we would have a Revenue Canada audit, but that is another story.

The fact is that to be notified of a Revenue Canada audit or a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency audit is one of the most frightening things a citizen can experience. I share those concerns with the hon. member.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. He made reference to productivity and innovation yet he made no reference to what the government put forward in prior budgets along with this budget: $3.15 billion in the CFI, the Canada Foundation for Innovation; $200 million to defray the indirect costs of university research; the strategic infrastructure fund, which would help in the productivity of Canada collectively as a country; and the protection of the agreement signed by the provinces and the federal government with respect to health care transfers.

Does the hon. member not believe that his province of Nova Scotia, a beautiful province which I visit often, actually will benefit from some of these initiatives put forward by the government?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, with whom I have served on the House of Commons finance committee, for his question.

Only a Liberal could boast about replacing with a teaspoon what he has taken out of the transfers to the provinces with a backhoe. I do not know whether he expects me to thank him on behalf of Nova Scotia for the pittance that has been returned to transfers when so much has been taken from the provinces in such a draconian way. If he was expecting that, he will be disappointed.

In terms of some of the specific programs, he mentioned the Canada Foundation for Innovation. I agree with him that there have been some gains made by what the government has done through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and other granting institutions that focus on research and development and on, in some cases, commercialized technologies across Canada, university based. However when I am asking the government for a productivity agenda I am not simply looking for government spending on improving productivity and I think Canadians realize that there is more to be done.

The Liberal government tends to believe that everything can be solved through government spending. I would argue that while programs like the Canada Foundation for Innovation can help, we can also use tax reform, regulatory reform, and a re-prioritization of spending in other areas. It can be done. It is like walking and chewing gum at the same time. We can do both at the same time. I would urge the government to improve its hand-eye co-ordination and, instead of just spending money, try to improve the lot of Canadians through regulatory tax reform and other innovation to address that issue.

There is one other problem with the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The grants require matching grants from the provinces. As a result it actually discriminates against provinces that are in weaker fiscal positions. If education is a priority from the perspective of equality of opportunity, we would not want to see the Canada Foundation for Innovation actually create a greater downward spiral for provinces that are in less strong fiscal positions. I think there is a real risk that it would do that now. I feel quite strongly about that, coming from Nova Scotia, the cradle of higher education in Canada, and representing in my riding Acadia University, which is the most innovative undergraduate university in all of Canada and one of the most innovative universities in the entire world.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Kings--Hants. Since he is a member from a province where the health care needs are as great as they are in any part of the country, I would like to ask him whether or not he is concerned about the pittance designated for health care in this budget. Does he agree that the federal cash share should be increased to at least guarantee a 15% federal government share in health care in the very short term, moving as expeditiously as possible to a 25% share which would take us back in the direction of a 50:50 partnership?

While he is addressing that, would he express any regrets or second thoughts about his former leader Brian Mulroney's decision to actually begin the process of cutting health care and off-loading onto the provinces?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member, who has been a very strong advocate for health care. I particularly appreciate her first question.

I alluded earlier to the fact that Nova Scotia does not have the tax base that some wealthier provinces do. I appreciate how dramatic and damaging those draconian cuts from the federal government have been for the province of Nova Scotia. I have seen the hospitals become clinics and the clinics become office buildings. The type of health care that my grandmother and grandfather enjoyed 20 years ago when they required it as elderly citizens is simply not there now for my parents as they are in that age group. It is a very personal issue. It is an issue in my riding right now as the provincial government is put into a position where these types of closures are being discussed. I certainly hope the province is able to find a way to prevent that.

In terms of the second question--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry, but I gave you almost an extra minute.

The hon. member for Elk Island.