Debates of March 15th, 2002

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question coming from a colleague who also has a municipal background. Sometimes I wonder whether it is an asset or a liability having that municipal background. I am sure in his case as well as in mine it is a wonderful background to have because we know firsthand what is important to our constituents, and that is bricks and mortar: to have a proper transportation system that works; to have policing that provides us with security; to have social programs, whether it is housing or social services, that work; to have hospitals that work; to have emergency rooms that work. All of that is almost like a micro type of arrangement of what we have at the national level.

The member asked a question about infrastructure and the importance of specific programs. Members may recall that one of our colleagues from Nepean, Beryl Gaffney, and I co-chaired the 1990 infrastructure task force initiated by our caucus at that time. We were in opposition then. We criss-crossed the country and met with many mayors as well as councillors. We came back with a report that to a large extent formed the basis of our very first infrastructure program the Liberal Government of Canada put to Canadians. That program has created thousands of jobs across the country, has responded to the needs of municipalities and has really acted as an economic stimulant at a time when not many economic stimulants were around, aside from those that were in the works.

I would say that not only has the government put in an additional $2 billion this year for strategic infrastructure, as my colleague has stated, but also as part of our new strategy on national security we have put in an additional $600 million that will go specifically to infrastructure around border crossing points in terms of preparing highways, preparing bridges and other types of infrastructure activities that are required.

Specifically for the $2 billion project that my colleague has spoken about, that will be absolutely marvellous for communities such as the one I represent. To cross from one end of this community to the next, it takes approximately 45 minutes at peak hours. That is a long time. We have a highway of only four lanes at best. There are six lanes in the middle of the city, but really it is only two lanes in communities outside the city. We are a community of close to one million people when we take in the suburbs. On the other side of the river we have an additional 700,000 people at least. In total it would be about 1.8 million people. Our communities would benefit greatly from a light rail system that would connect communities both east and west as well as north and south.

What a wonderful thing it would be if the communities on both sides of the river were to come together on this absolutely marvellous infrastructure program of $2 billion and submit one project for light rail in order to connect the communities east to west as well as north to south on both sides of the river, on the Outaouais side as well as the Ontario side. That would be a dream. I am sure that with the government commitment of $2 billion that dream could become a reality, therefore creating more jobs, responding to the needs of the community, protecting the environment and preparing the city to go into the next century fully equipped and energized in order to respond to the needs of its people.

These are the kinds of projects we see being repeated across the country. These are the kinds of initiatives the government has put before us and before Canadians. That is why I am exceptionally honoured and proud to be a part of this government and this regime and seeing those initiatives being implemented and being put before Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member who defends this status quo budget. It is not much more than the status quo of what the government has been doing over the years, which is not much of anything.

I am curious as to how the member feels about the $200 million injection into the budget that is supposed to help our military when we have words from the auditor general saying that billions of dollars are needed and a Senate committee insisting that we put a $3 billion to $4 billion injection into the military immediately. That $200 million sounds very small. At the same time the government is prepared to inject $500 million into providing cottages for the criminals across our land to give them more comforts while they are incarcerated. People do not respond favourably to these kinds of things. He has taken a lot of time on his high horse about the wonderful budget, but these specific things do not resonate with Canadians at all. I am wondering how they resonate with him.

Second, I hope the people who live in his riding will take some time to fax the member copies of their paycheque stubs of a year ago and paycheque stubs of today. He will notice that there is quite a significant difference in the amount of take home pay, which is less now than it has ever been. The standard of living is going down. The government is gouging and taking more taxes. It is like a bunch of rats; it can smell out taxes from the most unbelievable places to make more revenue. It absolutely is not resonating with Canadians. The member may say it is, but it certainly is not. I would like to hear the member respond to that.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in fairness I want to set the record straight. The government has made an unprecedented commitment to our military that previous governments have not been able to do, for whatever reasons. In fact it was this government that recognized the need to modernize and to support the needs of our Canadian military.

Let me run by my colleagues some of the things that were in the budget. I am not sure my colleagues have read the budget properly. I have a summary here of some of the items. The member talked about $200 million and I am talking about $7.7 billion for security funding. Let me tell my colleagues what we have put in specifically in order to support the military. We have put in $510 million to support the military. I do not know if my colleague is aware of that. We also have expanded the anti-terrorist capacity of our military. We invested an additional $119 million. In terms of supporting our military so it can combat issues such as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, there is an additional $513 million. For emergency preparedness we have committed $396 million as well as a contingency of $100 million. As far as we are concerned, that adds up to close to $1.7 billion.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have only a few minutes remaining in this debate but there is enough time for me to give you a number of reasons you can share with the government as to why it should step back and reconsider its new air travel tax.

I listened with interest to the previous speeches made by the government members and I think it is far too easy to rely on the events of September 11 to justify this decision. The government says that it was forced after September 11 to hurry up and implement security measures. It is too easy to refer to a tragic event such as this to justify the quasi-insane government policy of levying a new tax in an industry that, even prior to the events of September 11, was already experiencing a downturn.

Years ago it was clear that there was an obvious lack of competitiveness. To demonstrate this, since the mid-1980s until last year the cost of air travel in Canada has increased by approximately 10%. Some might say that over 15 years, this is not so bad. Yet while the cost of air travel in Canada jumped 10%, over the same period in the United States it dropped by 43%.

Already, due to this country's geography, population density and the populations requiring service in remote areas, the airline industry in Canada does not have the levels of profitability and operating costs that would allow it to be extremely profitable.

A tax such as this one would only adds to this situation. The government is saying to the industry “You are having problems being competitive, you are already experiencing problems maintaining service to remote areas, in particular, well, now we are going to saddle you with a new tax”.

Earlier, members were saying that it was not that much, that is was not a heavy tax. Yes, but it is enough to jeopardize the profit margins of a number of airlines, especially small and mid-size air carriers. It is also enough of a tax to put an end to air service in remote areas. It will no longer be profitable. It is also enough to lead to several economic development projects being dropped.

This government slaps on taxes willy-nilly, without even carrying out impact assessment studies. The general director of the Tax Policy Branch, in Ottawa, was candid in admitting to us that there were no studies carried out on the levying of such a tax. These people would do well to visit remote areas.

It is all very fine and well to ask small communities to take charge of their own lives, to develop tourist attractions using what is available to them and what they have but without an air link, which is often the most effective link and the only link in certain areas, their development is threatened.

They can be told to take charge of their lives, to work together, to invest, but, without an air link which is maintained, or which in many cases could be improved upon, in terms of the lack of frequency of flights, these communities are not being given a chance.

It cannot be that all the people who were with the opposition parties yesterday, the people representing all aspects of the airline industry, are wrong.

Yesterday, at the initiative of the Bloc Quebecois, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, the Air Transport Association of Canada, and the Association of Canadian Travel Agents, joined forces here in Ottawa. All these people stood behind the opposition parties, and behind the Bloc Quebecois' initiative calling on the government to cancel this new tax in Bill C-49. All were unanimous that this tax made absolutely no sense and that it would not encourage economic development or put the economy back on track.

It is rather outrageous to have a government that is juggling with surpluses, even during an economic slowdown. In a few days, the government will be announcing a net surplus of over $9 billion. While it is already squeezing out of the taxpayers' pockets more money than necessary, it has the nerve to introduce this new tax, which will not bring in $2.2 billion over a five year period, as the government claims, but $1 billion more than that. This tax will bring in more than $3 billion to the government, which is already juggling with surpluses.

As we are launching the debate on tax imbalance, the government is creating additional pressure regarding surpluses, by accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars more annually, under the pretence of improving security. Let us face it: this is outrageous.

What we are asking the federal government—and the coalition made it clear yesterday—is to use its surpluses to invest in security. It has enough money to do so. The Minister of Finance is juggling with surpluses. It is incredible. But the government is adding yet another tax.

In conclusion, the government must come to its senses and give up this idea of imposing a new tax. It is not true that this tax will be reviewed in six months. It may be reviewed in six months, but Canada's tax history tells us that when a new tax is introduced, it is very hard to get rid of afterwards. Once it is in effect, forget it. The personal income tax collected by Ottawa was supposed to be a temporary measure. It was meant to finance the war effort. We have been waiting 60 years to see it abolished. Obviously, once a tax is in place, it cannot be removed.

I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to immediately withdraw this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member seeks unanimous consent of the House to immediately withdraw this bill. Does the House give unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker]

It being 1.15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, March 11, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third ready stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until Monday, March 18, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion.

Questions in the House of Commons

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to my colleague's Motion No. 20. My colleague from New Brunswick Southwest moved the motion in reaction to a situation he found himself in where he had put a question on the order paper that the government failed to answer over a period of a year. That frustration has brought it to the point where it is now a debatable motion before the House.

The concern of my hon. colleague and all of us is that we are here representing the people of Canada to hold the government accountable. That is our job in opposition. It is to ensure that when the government makes decisions it is making the best decisions on behalf of Canadians.

The only way that a person can evaluate whether or not the government is doing its job, whether it is doing the best it can for Canadians, is to have access to information. When the opposition asks for information from the government and is denied that information it prohibits us from doing that which we are here to do and that is to ensure that all the facts are on the table, that all the information is out there for perusal, so that we can question the government on how it interpreted information and how it reached the decisions it did.

We in opposition are expressing great concern through the motion. We are trying to get the government members to understand that if parliament is to continue to hold the respect of Canadians we must operate in a manner that earns that respect.

I was confronted this week in the transportation committee with regard to the report that the minister of government services lost. I will not say that the minister lost it. The department lost a report. There was some concern that a good deal of money, half a million dollars, had been spent by government on behalf of Canadian taxpayers to have this report written. After the expenditure of these dollars, lo and behold, this report was not to be seen. One has to question how the government made the decision to hire the company to write the report.

Groupaction was the company that was contracted to write the report for the government. The contract was to propose ways to increase the federal government's visibility and was reviewing a number of programs the government was involved in.

In committee we asked the government representative who this company was, how it got the contract and what happened to the report that was the result of the work that it supposedly did. We were told that there were nine companies that were authorized by the Government of Canada to do this work.

Canada is a pretty large nation and I am sure there are quite a few companies that could do the kind of work that this company was asked to do. We asked for information about how the government picks nine companies from all of those across the country to do the work. We were told that it was the practice of government to preselect and short list companies that will do contract work for the government, not only in this department but in other departments as well.

Keeping that in mind, that it is a matter of practice for the government to short list or preselect companies that qualify to apply for these government contracts, we asked a few more questions.

It came to light, albeit through the media and the questions they were asking and the work they were doing, that three of the pre-selected companies were somewhat related to each other out of these nine. We are not talking about nine unrelated companies. We are talking about maybe six or seven unrelated companies. Three of them having the same president.

When there is some concern expressed about one of these pre-selected companies out of the nine, which really is down to six, who got the contract and then found itself giving money back to the government, it is not unrealistic for the opposition to say that something does not seem quite right. We need to see copies of the report and of the documentation around the report, and furthermore we would like to see some evidence on what criteria the government authored or pre-approved these nine companies. What kind of clearance, security or investigation went on to see whether or not these companies were related to one another?

It is because of incidents like this where Canadian taxpayers pay half a million for a report that gets lost, that was done in questionable circumstances by companies that were pre-selected by the government and that gave money back to the government, that the opposition must have access to documentation and to those things upon which government makes its decision.

If we do not have access to information, how is it possible for the opposition, those of us on this side of the floor, to do our jobs on behalf of Canadians? That is our role. In order for us to be able to do that job we need access to information.

If that was not bad enough, I just read something today, again in the media, where DND will not release the names of visitors or the money spent on them because of their rights to privacy. We heard that Treasury Board did not want to release the expense accounts of ministers because of rights of privacy. It is pretty hard to hold ministers and the Department of National Defence to account as to where tax dollars are being spent if that information is withheld from those people who are here to hold the government to account.

It is interesting that the government does not see the necessity of this function of parliament. Parliament is here, and the opposition is here, to check and question where the government is spending tax dollars. That is why we have estimates and a budget. That is why we have that process. However if parliament is not allowed to have the information where we can question the estimates then we are being denied the facility of doing our jobs.

The PC/DR coalition introduced a new concept in relation to the whole national security issue and anti-terrorism legislation that has been discussed over the last couple of months. In coming up with how we felt government should do business differently and how it should co-ordinate functions and create a new ministry, we recognized the need for a parliamentary committee to be established so that we would have access to highly sensitive information.

The reason we did that was because we saw the need to have parliament holding the government accountable. The only way we can do that is by access to information. We saw the need even in the highly secure areas of anti-terrorism and national security to have a parliamentary committee

It is not like it is not done anywhere else. In the United States information is shared and shared widely so that the opposition can do the job it is elected to do, that is, hold the government accountable.

I would like the government to recognize that and support the motion.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the motion we are debating is crucial. It is one more symptom of what we in the opposition no matter which party we represent are trying to do. There are times when the only way we can hold the government accountable is to request certain information. Those of us who have been here any length of time recognize that the government has used many vehicles to preempt our ability to obtain information. During my career here a few examples immediately come to mind.

In my role as the critic for aboriginal affairs in the 1993-97 parliament, there were certainly times when the Privacy Act was invoked. There were obvious abuses of obligations that had been incurred by bands in contractual arrangements with people. The original funding which allowed the bands to enter into these arrangements was Canadian taxpayers' money.

In a case in Atlantic Canada, the supreme court of that province made a judgment against the band. The band and the department of Indian affairs were stonewalling. The eventual resolution I had to resort to was to take all the documentation to the auditor general. The auditor general exerted influence through the bureaucracy and, I am assuming, through the minister. That was the only thing that cleared up this financial obligation.

Another example is when members on the fisheries committee collectively wanted observer reports from Atlantic operations to be available from fishing operations out off the Grand Banks and so on. After a monumental Herculean effort, we were finally given access. In fact, had it not been for the amount of media attention focused on that, the government still would have had the levers available to deny those observer reports.

Over the course of time I have also had to use the access to information provisions which Canadian citizens and we as members of parliament are allowed to use to extract information from the government. That has not always been a happy exercise either.

When I wanted to obtain information on what on earth Transport Canada was doing in terms of devolution of west coast docks and wharf facilities, that exercise from start to completion took close to two years. I met roadblock after roadblock and basically had to persevere. It should not have to be that way.

When it comes to this current motion for the production of papers, it is apparent that the member for New Brunswick Southwest has the correct motivations and has shown much persistence. He has tried to do everything through the rules.

It would be most inappropriate if this votable motion were not given serious consideration by all members of the House, not just on the opposition side but on the government side as well. In many ways this is a litmus test for government accountability and government transparency. There is no earthly reason that the request should be denied.

I would hope that members of the House, when called upon to vote on the motion, will find it is the right way to go. I would urge them to do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate. We will proceed according to Standing Order 97(2) by allowing five minutes to a minister of the crown.

There is no minister of the crown and the mover is not here either for another five minute reply.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Acting on behalf of the mover, would I get another five minutes?