House of Commons Hansard #200 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was provinces.
Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS
Can the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), or any other relevant department, indicate, on a yearly basis, from 1990 to 2002 inclusive, the number of times ( a ) fisheries surveillance aircraft and ( b ) fisheries patrol vessels (including Coast Guard and DFO) have conducted surveillance excursions on the Grand Banks?
Question No. 146Routine Proceedings
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok Québec
Liberal
Georges Farrah LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
The following table shows the number of sea and air patrols in the Grand Banks area for the period 1990-2002, figures shown for the year 2002 include the period January 2002 to May 2, 2002 inclusive.
Surveillance Patrols 1990-2002
Note:
Department of National Defense, DND, fisheries patrols, by ship and air, are included in the annual figures provided above for each year indicated. Annual DND sea patrols range 8 to 10 per year, except 2001 when 5 DND patrols were achieved due to 9/11 contingency.
Approximately 55 DND air patrols are conducted in support of DFO each year. DND patrols, air and sea, are provided under the terms of a memorandum of understanding between the two departments . DFO fishery officers are deployed on all DND fisheries patrols.
Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC
With regard to changes made to the list of eligible passport guarantors: ( a ) what was the rationale behind eliminating the role of a signing officer at a credit union or caisse populaire to act as a guarantor for a member; and ( b ) what supporting documentation was considered in arriving at this rationale?
Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Titles assigned to various positions differ from bank to bank making it impossible to determine if individuals meet the criteria by virtue of their title alone. Within an organization, “bank signing officer” may include individuals who are both qualified and unqualified to act as guarantor. The term has no clear universal definition. By keeping the guarantor categories to manageable proportions, the Passport Office is able to verify guarantor qualifications at minimal cost without disrupting rapid service.
There was no supporting documentation considered, however, “bank signing officer” is not clearly defined. When the name of a signing officer does not appear on the association’s membership list, the Passport Office is unable to verify his or her qualifications. Because there is no association or official membership list that covers all types of bank signing officers, the decision was made, effective immediately, to remove the category.
Garry Breitkreuz Canadian Alliance Yorkton—Melville, SK
Does the government have any statistics or research about the death rate after a pregnancy, and if so, what is, in the 12 months after the end of a pregnancy, the total death rate by women having an elective abortion compared to women carrying their baby to term?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Industry
Statistics Canada has only a limited amount of data and research on the death rate after a pregnancy. Estimates of maternal mortality after pregnancy have been calculated by the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System, which includes staff from Health Canada and Statistics Canada, in two recently published studies in Chronic Diseases in Canada.
Among the 1,939,471 women for whom a pregnancy or birth was known to have occurred during the study period (1988-1992), the authors identified 438 women who died of any cause of death either while pregnant or within 225 days of a registered birth or stillbirth.
Statistics Canada also annually publishes data on deaths and death rates, including maternal mortality, defined as deaths caused by complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the 42 days following termination of a pregnancy. Of the 329 maternal deaths that occurred from 1979 to 1998, seven deaths had an underlying cause of complications from abortion.
Other than these results, Statistics Canada is unaware of any other data that could shed light on the question posed.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Can the Minister of Health indicate: ( a ) the estimated amount of non-approved veterinary drugs that are being used on animals in Canada annually; ( b ) if plans exist for a memorandum of understanding between Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that gives this agency's compliance officers jurisdiction to enforce laws and policies relating to drugs used in animal feed, and if so, the expected date of the signing; ( c ) the amount of active pharmaceutical ingredients imported and used on animals in Canada annually; and ( d ) the estimated amount of non-approved veterinary drugs entering Canada annually under Health Canada's “own use policy”?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Health
Health Canada does not currently have a formal system in place to track non-approved veterinary drugs that are being used in animals in Canada. Anecdotal data are available which indicates some extra-label use of drugs, drugs used for purposes other than approved usage, as well as importation of non-approved veterinary drugs for use on animals.
As part of its strengthening exercise, the veterinary drugs directorate of Health Canada will be conducting a survey this summer and fall on the extra label use of veterinary drugs in Canada. This is a major step in addressing this issue.
Efforts are also underway to step up investigation and interception of cases where unapproved products are being imported or sold in Canada. Results of monitoring by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, for violative residues of veterinary drugs in food have shown consistently high compliance.
Discussions are well underway between Health Canada and the CFIA to develop a memorandum of understanding. This agreement will be in place by the fall of 2002 and implemented by April 2003.
Health Canada does not currently have a tracking system in place to monitor how active pharmaceutical ingredients, APIs, are being used in animals in Canada. Again, only anecdotal information is available at this time.
Health Canada's health products and food branch inspectorate is presently enforcing a policy which restricts the extent and the purposes for which APIs can be imported into Canada.
(d) We do not have specific information from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency on the importation of these products. The current policy on personal importation applies to drugs for human use only and not for drugs intended for veterinary use.
There is anecdotal information that veterinary drug products are being imported under this policy which are not for personal use but which are being sold or used by veterinarians to treat food producing animals. For this reason, Health Canada’s veterinary drugs directorate is developing a policy to address the importation of veterinary drug products. Prescription veterinary drugs can only be imported into Canada by animal owners.
Again, foods are regularly and systematically analyzed by the CFIA for veterinary drug residues to ensure compliance with Canadian regulations.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 153.
Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC
With regard to Inuit sled dogs, for the current Nunavik territory and for the period from 1950 to 1969, did the government, through one of its departments or agencies (i) order the killing of the dogs, (ii) adopt a policy supporting it, (iii) promote it directly or indirectly, and if so: ( a ) what were the reasons, and what was the nature of the problem the government was seeking to resolve; ( b ) was any consideration given to other actions or approaches for resolving that problem; ( c ) how was it decided that the killing of the dogs was the most appropriate action to be pursued in relation to the said problem; ( d ) how many dogs were killed as a result of government decisions, policies or actions; ( e ) were the Inuit consulted on the killing of the dogs, and if so, how and to what extent; ( f ) were any Inuit directly compensated for the loss of their dogs, and if so, how and in what amount or by what means; and ( g ) were any remedial measures taken to help offset effects on Inuit resulting from the killing of the dogs, and if so, what was the nature of these remedial measures?
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
RCMP records do not indicate the existence of any government policy regarding the systematic killing of sled dogs. There was no arbitrary killing of dogs in the communities of the current Nunavik territory for the period from 1950 to 1969, except when dogs were deemed dangerous or posed a threat to individuals.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Is it agreed?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could have the attention of all members who are present.
I understand there was some confusion as to the status of what was sought by the member for Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia. I wish to reflect everyone's intention and I thought I would put it into the record for greater clarification.
I believe you would find agreement that journals record the motion for which the member for Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia sought consent to be deemed defeated on division.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Is that agreed?
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The motion is then defeated on division.
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
moved:
That, after overpaying at least $3.3 billion to several provinces as a result of its own accounting errors, this House calls upon the government to forgive any past revenue overpayments to the provinces since retroactively clawing back these revenues would severely affect the provinces' ability to pay for healthcare, education and social services.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill.
In view of the recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on the supply day motion that we presented dealing with the federal government's overpayment to the provinces of approximately $3.3 billion due to its own accounting errors. This is one of those issues where we can take a couple of different approaches to resolving it.
Essentially what happened is that in late January of this year some provincial governments received a nasty shock. It seemed that the federal government's accounting error had resulted in $3.3 billion in overpayments to Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. Ontario received the largest overpayment. These miscalculations happened over a period of time from 1993 to 1999. It also put out of line the equalization payments resulting in another overpayment of approximately $300 million.
Just this week the auditor general confirmed that the total overpayment was at $3.7 billion: Ontario was overpaid $2.8 billion; Manitoba, $364 million; British Columbia, $95 million; and Alberta, $3 million. Nova Scotia received $9 million and New Brunswick received $4 million in overpayments on equalization transfers. How did this happen? Where does the fault lie? We maintain that it lies with the Liberal government, which took power in 1993.
Under federal-provincial tax agreements the federal government, through CCRA, administers personal income taxes on behalf of the provinces, other than Quebec. The federal government has the responsibility for the collection of all provincial income taxes, except for Quebec, and for paying those amounts to the provinces. The federal government's miscalculation was on the refund for capital gains taxes on mutual fund trusts. Since capital gains are taxable only when an asset is sold, mutual fund trusts pay the required federal and provincial tax to the CCRA but are reimbursed when fund investors sell or redeem their units and pay tax on their capital gains.
What happened is that the CCRA never accounted for the refunds of the provincial tax assessed on capital gains when it calculated the federal reconciliation figures. CCRA used the gross figure instead of the net. The implications of this error are significant.
In addition to the overpayment of capital gains refunds, this miscalculation also put out of line the complicated federal-provincial equalization program formula. With the bulk of overpayment going to Ontario it artificially raised the equalization line, meaning that Canada's have-not provinces were overpaid almost $300 million in federal transfers.
What will the federal government do about its mess? So far we have seen two approaches.
The first approach is the co-operative approach. The former finance minister gave the impression to the provincial premiers that he would be lenient in terms of payback. Newspaper accounts reported that the federal and provincial governments were close to finalizing a deal last week before the finance minister was fired. The Manitoba government claims it was assured that the federal government would cover 70% to 80% and perhaps even the full amount of the overpayment.
This makes sense to us in the Canadian Alliance. It takes into account that this error was an error of the federal government. It did not happen just once. It happened year after year for almost 10 years. The same people at the CCRA were making this error over and over again.
It would also take into account the common law principle of estoppel, which is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as:
A bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true; and an affirmative defense alleging good-faith reliance on a misleading representation and an injury or detrimental change in position resulting from that reliance.
That is what I would call the equity argument. The federal government has to take responsibility for its error, in the same way that many of us would if we did not keep track of our household finances and we paid wrongly for a long period of time. The common law principle we are talking about is that when something becomes a practice over a very long period of time it comes to be accepted.
The provinces, not realizing that the federal government had made this error in calculation, were collecting this money, even though they did not realize it was overpayment. Therefore they were spending the money on program spending, on education, health care and those types of programs that entitle their citizens to services that the provinces provide.
This massive error was made by the federal government and was not a result of a miscalculation as to whether a province was entitled to a certain amount of money. Rather it was an error in federal mathematics. Therefore it was a mistake, in fact, not in law. In this sense the federal government would be hard pressed after almost a decade of acting in a certain way to say now that the provinces should not have relied upon the federal behaviour and calculations.
This was not a one time thing, as I have said. This went on for almost 10 consecutive years. Since the federal government was negligent for so long, it has a responsibility for the fact that it paid out the wrong amount of money.
In addition there appears to be a precedent set by the former minister of finance, Michael Wilson, in the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney 12 years ago. Way back then, miscalculations on corporate taxes between 1985 and 1990 resulted in a federal overpayment of $40 million to Manitoba. What did Mr. Wilson do? He agreed to a corresponding equalization payment at 80¢ for every dollar to the province to be paid back to the federal government. The Canadian Alliance certainly hopes that the federal government would be as generous to the provinces about its mistake as the former Mulroney government was.
This is what I call the co-operative approach and it is one to which we would agree. Provinces, through no fault of their own, received this money. It was part of their budgetary process. They spent the money and it would be very difficult for them to recover it.
The second approach seems to be the one that is favoured by the current Minister of Finance and by the Prime Minister, as opposed to the approach taken by the former minister of finance. This is what I call the confrontational approach. Under the new Minister of Finance it seems that things are not as clear as they were under the former minister. He and the Prime Minister have suggested that the federal government will demand an immediate payback for the federal government's mistake.
This is an approach we could use but it is fraught with difficulties. The question is whether it is a good approach. Canadians ask themselves whether the Prime Minister and the new Minister of Finance will force those provinces that have the hardest time balancing their books, in some cases, to pay for the federal government mistake. If we do go down that road and that is the road chosen by the federal government, it certainly will sour federal-provincial relations, something the Liberal government may be used to but it certainly is not good for the federation.
What are the options for the provinces under this approach? They could cut their own program spending in the next year or they could raise taxes. Basically those are the only choices they have. If the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister insist that this has to be paid back, that is the reality. The provinces from where the paybacks have to come have to come up with the money somehow, money that has been long since spent.
It does not seem like either of these choices are a good way to resolve this because it will mean a loss of service or an increase in taxes for Canadians in the affected provinces.
If the federal government demands repayment for other logical reasons, what will it do with the $3.3 billion? It certainly does not have a good track record with Canadian taxpayer money. The provinces should be question whether, if it gives the money back, it will use it in a way that is beneficial to Canadians.
We have certainly seen in the last few months in this parliament in the current year many examples of waste of taxpayer money. We see it every day in the sponsorship program. The Prime Minister said the other day in Winnipeg “So we lose a few million dollars here and there. Well, it's probably good for the country”. I do not agree with him. It is never good when we are losing hard earned taxpayer money.
That is the record that they have over there. Let us have a look at it. We have wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money on misguided ideology of state corporatism. Canadians have seen their tax dollars poured into blatant patronage projects, such as Shawinigate, sponsorship programs for Liberal advertising friends, a billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC, corporate welfare and wasteful industrial and regional development programs for well monied companies such as Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, IBM, General Electric. These are some of the biggest corporations in the world. Here we are handing out money. What is the record on that money that they are handing out? I think they describe it as repayable contributions.
What does that mean? Repayable contributions is a real problem in itself. Either it is a contribution or it is repayable. It cannot be both.
In fact, I think the Canadian Taxpayers Federation just identified that in the seven years since the TPC, the technology partnerships Canada program, has been in effect, the federal government has recovered just 2%.
Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB
It is just unbelievable, as my colleague just said.
In a sense the government has just admitted that this is not a loan at all. It is not a loan to Bombardier. It is not a loan to Pratt & Whitney. It is not a loan to General Electric. It is an outright grant. At least the previous government was honest with what it called it. It called it a grant and there was no intention that it would ever be paid back.
We have seen millions of dollars of taxpayer money given away to these large corporations. Essentially the government tells us that the companies will give us research and development. We see that Bombardier is in a huge international subsidy war with Embraer of Brazil. The World Trade Organization has been very critical of the federal government for subsidizing Bombardier. The WTO said in its latest ruling that Canada had to stop. The federal government has not stopped this practice.
What happens? We recover the $3.3 billion from the provinces. The provinces have to go to their taxpayers and say that they have to up provincial taxes to get the money to give back to the federal government, money that the provinces thought was theirs and was spent on social programs over 10 years. Now the provinces have to raise provincial taxes or cut services. That is the option. It is as simple as that.
What will the federal government do with this money when it gets it? Hopefully it will be spent wisely. That is not always the record that we see in the House.
Taxpayers in Ontario and Manitoba will be asking, when they pay increased taxes, if the money will go to a hotel in Shawinigan, or motels, or arenas, or golf courses, or regional development programs that the auditor general criticizes routinely as essentially digging a hole in the ground and pouring the money in. That is the record.
Instead of these kinds of programs and state corporatism on which the government has been spending money, perhaps it should be looking at cutting income taxes and let people get ahead. That has not been their practice in the past.
It is really a matter of priority. We could take the confrontational approach that the government seems to be bent on with the current administration, the current Minister of Finance and I say the current Prime Minister because who knows how long that will last. Really what we need is a program, because Canadians deserve better than they are getting, an end to wasteful spending and a better co-operative approach with the provinces.
The federal government has made the mistake. I say let the federal government eat it and get on with matters.
When the Prime Minister says that we lose a few million dollars here and there, I do not think Canadians accept that. They would not want to see their taxes raised in those provinces or program spending cuts for health and education in order for the federal government to receive this money back and then waste it in that style.
As the premier of Manitoba has noted that the extra funding it received, which was calculated in error, was spent on hospitals, schools and roads.
What is the Liberal government doing on the other side of things? It has stashed $7 billion in off-book foundations, most of which is being invested, sitting in bank accounts not even being spent.
Some people suggested that the money was designed for the next election campaign. It could pull it out and use it as it wished during that time, $7 billion of which the auditor general has been critical as recently as the day before yesterday. In a speech in a Senate committee, the auditor general said that this was not acceptable accounting practices.
When the federal government gets the money back, what will it to do with it? The provinces received the money in error. We have seen that they have spent that money on hospitals and schools as opposed to the record of the Liberal government which has spent it on Swiss-style bank accounts with foundations and on patronage payments.
It is bad enough that the federal government has moved into social areas. I am just talking about the souring of relationships with the provinces and federal-provincial jurisdiction. If we take the confrontational approach, as the Prime Minister is basically saying we should, I suggest it will continue to sour relationships with the provinces, partly because the federal government does not have a very good record in this area. It moved over the past 30 years to take over a number of areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has muddied the water. It has even offered cost sharing programs that entice the provinces to accept some diminishment of provincial responsibilities in the jurisdictional area to get federal government money. It is like the proverbial carrot dangled in front of their noses.
Some of the areas that the federal government has moved into in the last few years that belong to the provinces are basically social areas clearly defined in the constitution as provincial areas such as health care, labour force training and education through such things as the millennium scholarship grants. We see more and more of this approach by the federal government through not minding the store in its own areas of jurisdiction and not doing the things it ought to, as was assigned to it over 100 years ago by the fathers of confederation.
Defence was an area that was clearly given to the federal government in the constitution. What has happened to monetary policy? What has happened to security and immigration? The government has messed up big time. In fact it has hardly paid any attention. If it paid any attention at all, it was to diminish the role of the defence department. Our armed forces are struggling to maintain even uniforms for use in desert conditions. My understanding is that they have them now though. They got the new uniforms just in time to come home. Is that not something? The defence department was cut back for years in the federal government's program of priorities.
What is it doing instead? It is muscling into provincial jurisdiction. It is none of its business. Why does it not pay attention to its own areas of jurisdiction? It does not have a good record there.
September 11 will show how weak the federal government has been in its own areas of jurisdiction such as security, immigration and refugees. I and my party say that the government should get back to the business that was assigned to it in the constitution by the Fathers of Confederation and stop meddling in provincial government affairs.
It seems to me that the approach the federal government is taking is one of confrontation. We believe that it should recognize that it was the main problem in the overpayment. It was a year after year miscalculation. Why does it not let it go, let the provinces solve their problems as best they can, get out of provincial areas of jurisdiction and really get back to what it should be doing?
Balancing the federal budget was done on the backs of the provinces. The Liberals already muddied the waters with the provinces. The federal government took $20 billion out of the provinces by way of transfers just to balance its own budget. We recognize it needed to balance the budget but why would it do it on the backs of the provinces and force them to accept many lesser amounts from the federal government? The provinces had to really scratch and cut in order to balance their books.
The federal government cut transfers to the provinces by $25 billion by the year 2000. What is happening? The federal government's budget was up with an increase in spending last year of almost 12%. About 2% of that happened because of increased security and defence spending.
The other 10% is just a Liberal increase, which has been so connected with this Liberal government over the last 30 years. It cannot resist increasing spending. With another $3.3 billion coming from the provinces, what is the government going to do with it? Probably it will just increase spending again.
The Canadian Alliance does not support this. We support a more co-operative approach with the provinces. Let us write this off as a mistake, correct the problem so it does not happen again and move on toward better provincial-federal relations.
Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the topic is today. I listened to that speech and it was all over the place. I listened and did not do any heckling like some of my colleagues on the other side apparently like to do. I listened attentively to the speech to see where the member was going with it.
In terms of the overpayment issue, it is very clear from this gentleman across the way that--