Debates of Oct. 7th, 2003

Income Tax Act

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and debate Bill C-210. I appreciate the intent of this bill.

The hon. member who prepared this private member's bill had the concerns of parents who must deal with high fees to put their children in sports, and that is a very noble thing. Anybody in this place who is a parent has some sense of how expensive it can be to put children into hockey, soccer, football, or whatever the case is, especially if one has a number of children. Doing it year after year is a very common situation and can cost thousands of dollars. It cost around $500 to put my son in hockey this year. It is not an insignificant amount of money. It is a lot of money and so I appreciate the intent of the member's private member's bill.

It is a noble thing. But having said that, I am afraid I cannot support it and there are a number of reasons why.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

My friend is saying shame with a smile on his face.

It is important to note that there are a number of noble activities that parents support for their children as they are growing up. There are many ways to enrich their lives, keep them off the streets, and give them something that they can accomplish and be proud of.

If one has children who like to dance and wants to put them in ballet, that costs money. If one has children engaged in various kinds of crafts, obviously that can cost money. If one has them in music, that can cost a lot of money. There are all kinds of things that cost money that the children could go into that obviously this bill would not cover.

One of the obvious things is that we do not want to suggest that one activity should be of a higher ranking than another. Sports are a great thing. I participated in sports when I was growing up, my kids have and we support that. However other people make different choices because their children have different interests. We should not have legislation that favours one kind of activity. In doing that we discriminate against other kinds of activities. Frankly, that is what this bill does. For that reason I just cannot support it.

It is important to send the message to the public and to parents that we want to support them in having the money to put their children into all these kinds of activities. That is why the Canadian Alliance does not favour specific tax relief for certain activities that guide people, that says that if they follow our rules they will get a tax break.

We support, and I hope my friend who has moved this motion supports, general tax relief for all Canadians, so if they want to put their children into sports, or if they want to go into music or whatever it is, then by all means they should do that, but a lot of people today do not have the means to do that.

One thing we proposed in the 2000 election was a $3,000 per child tax deduction for single income families, single parents, and dual parents. That would put not a few hundred but thousands of dollars into the pockets of families with children under the age of 16. We received tremendous support for that idea in the 2000 election and people were very interested in that. It would demonstrate that the government recognizes the value of raising children and that it is a difficult job.

There is no question that one of the toughest jobs in the world is to raise kids. I am a member of Parliament and many people in this place have had other jobs where they have achieved tremendous things and high status in their professions. But I bet there is not one member who is a parent who has not found, in the middle of all the achievements, that when there is a problem at home with a child, they forget about everything they are doing and all that matters is what is going on with their child. I think we have all had that experience.

What I found, as our children grow up, is that it gets to the point where I would much rather see my children achieve than have some kind of personal glory for something that I have achieved. I think we have all been in that position.

I remember when my oldest scored a goal at a hockey game one time in the playoffs. He dived into the crease and knocked the puck into the net. I think I was happier than he was. I almost jumped on to the ice. I was so excited for him. The game went into overtime and his team lost if I remember correctly, but it was just a wonderful thing.

It is a wonderful thing if parents have the means to support their children to accomplish those kind of things. In this case it was sports. But in other cases it might be a piano recital, or whatever the case may be.

To the member who has proposed this private member's bill, I think it is a noble effort, but it is too narrow and it is shallow. It is too narrow in the sense that it does not cover all the activities. We must remember that the activities children want to engage in are endless. They may have no interest in the arts or sports. It may be computers that interests them. That may be where their talent lies, that is where they get their joy, and that is what they want to do.

In that case, that is where mom and dad, or mom, or dad, or whatever the case may be in that family, may want to devote the money but they do not have the money.

Let us support a tax deduction like the one we proposed in the 2000 election that opens up the ambit of choice for people so we are not limited by whatever the government happens to think of on that day.

One of the great things that I discovered being a member of Parliament is that I have come to appreciate how wonderful families are in the sense that they do so many things that governments could never do and they do them so well, by and large. I am speaking generally here. But by and large, nobody cares more for children than the parents of those children. Let us find ways to give them the means to look after their children.

If we were resourceful and sat down to look at the books of the government, where it spends $170 billion a year on all kinds of things, we would find all the stuff in there that was wasteful. We would find outcomes that did not achieve what they were supposed to achieve and in some cases were counterproductive or actually harmed the economy. There are things like that. If we were resourceful, I could guarantee that we would find a bunch of savings and we could use those savings to give to parents so that they could provide opportunities for their children.

In some cases it would not even be any of the activities that we talked about. In some cases it would be to send them to university because maybe they are in a situation where they do not have the capacity to do that otherwise. I also want to point out to my friend who proposed this, what if a parent has a disabled child who cannot participate in sports? This bill would discriminate against disabled children. We need to think in much broader terms about how we could help families

I have come to realize, after being here 10 years, that governments cannot decide what is right for families. That is crazy. Do not let the government do it. Let families decide what is right for families, who all have different heritages, traditions, and views about what is right for their children. Sure, there are times when individual families make mistakes, and that is a tragedy. But a much worse tragedy is when the government makes a decision that causes a tragedy for all families.

Let us not try to cure a problem for a small group of people by introducing a solution that would turn out to be a tragedy for a whole bunch of people. Let us find a way, instead, to take this motion, broaden it to include everything, and deepen it so that it would provide a lot more money to families so they can provide for their children in whatever way they see fit.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-210, whose purpose is to implement a tax credit for participation in amateur sport.

Straight off, I will tell you that the objective pursued by this bill is quite commendable. As the Bloc Quebecois critic for amateur sport, I will always be in favour of the idea of taking various measures to promote physical activity and participation in sport. It is also crucial to promote a better quality of life, better health for our fellow citizens. In this regard, we can only encourage a greater awareness of the benefits of sport and sport activity. A healthy mind in a healthy body is the most eloquent expression of this.

Thus, in the face of it, it is easy to recognize the relevance of this measure, whose purpose is to provide families with more money for participation in sport activities. But what does this really mean?

Although I support the purpose of this tax credit, I am still convinced that this is not an appropriate measure, and I will explain why. What my colleague really wants with this new provision is to reduce the tax burden of families, thus allowing them to afford the sport activities that they want.

However, I believe that it is not necessarily the families in question that will take advantage of this reduction. And to demonstrate this, I would like to make some comments on tax credits in general.

I am not totally against this kind of measure, quite the contrary. Under certain circumstances, it can be an effective measure. However, with regard to the current debate, I humbly believe that there are many other ways that are much more worthwhile and especially much less costly to achieve our goals.

First, the implementation of a tax credit is sometimes extremely costly for the government, before, during and after. This does not include the administration costs and also the fact that it would take two to three years to calculate the indirect costs, and we would not even be sure that this tax credit would really achieve its objectives, which are to put more money in the pockets of families. Ultimately, this may cost more in expenses than in direct benefits for the taxpayer.

Second, should a family be unable to claim this tax credit, it would still be paying the administration costs with its taxes. It would also pay for the gap between the money that its neighbour is receiving and the shortfall in federal revenues.

So, before supporting such a measure, we must make sure that all alternatives have been considered. If the intention is to provide tax relief to families, this could very easily be done differently and at a much lower cost. The goal is basically to increase the wealth of taxpayers. Why then not increase the basic personal exemption, or the dependent credit or the child tax benefit? Why not simply give a tax cut to those in that particular bracket?

Middle-income families have benefited the least from the tax cuts in recent years. No wonder some of them are having a really hard time paying the fees to participate in sport activities.

These few examples show that tax measures much more appropriate than the ones proposed by my colleague are available.

Other areas of this bill also require our attention. I consider that the bill is not only inappropriate, but also somewhat discriminatory. Why limit the tax credit to sport activities?

How can the government arbitrarily grant a financial benefit for sport activities and not for other activities, such as cultural activities? What about musicians and the outrageous price of some instruments? What about all those who have other equally important and worthwhile interests with respect to their health and well-being?

A brief analysis quickly reveals that the scope of what is being proposed in this bill is much too limited. Besides, it is about time we stop deciding everything for our fellow citizens.

I think that this tendency to want to centralize everything and have the state decide for the taxpayers is becoming less and less acceptable. Personally, I would rather leave more money in their pockets and let them make their own decisions. After all, this is their money; they should get to decide. This is a matter of respect and fairness.

I would also like to touch on some aspects of the bill, particularly in reference to the formula for calculating the credit.

Under the bill, the formula takes into account “...the total of all fees paid by the individualin the year for the individual... to participate in amateursport”. Personally, I think this provision would lend itself to abuse. No limit for the fees is provided. Does it mean that golf club membership fees would be deductible? Because one needs to go to a golf course to participate in that sport. Could I also deduct my $3,000 new golf clubs? Because without clubs one cannot play golf.

I truly believe that this bill is like giving a blank cheque to the taxpayers and I have a feeling that this measure will mostly benefit the rich. To those who may argue that the regulations will clarify this, I would like to point out that, under the bill, the governor in council may only makeregulations prescribing the types of fees thatmay be deducted. “Types of fees” refer to the eligible activities, not to the amount spent on those activities.

Imagine the risks of such a provision and all the misinterpretations it could lead to.

It would have been wise and logical to establish the maximum amount that can be deducted, as is the case for most other tax credits, or at least to give explicit power to regulate the amount of the fees.

Therefore, for all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support this legislation, because we are convinced and have shown that, unfortunately, the objective sought in this bill will not be achieved.

The federal government has the key to allowing everyone to breathe easier and to improve their quality of life, whether through sport, leisure activities, art or any other endeavour. For several years now, the government has had surpluses coming out of its ears, and it is our money. Therefore, it has an obligation to return part of these surpluses to those from whom it took that money.

This way, people will be able to decide for themselves what they want to do with this extra money, whether they want to spend it on sport activities, on leisure activities or on anything else. I truly believe that each person should be able to decide what his or her priorities are.

In closing, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his initiative and express to him my respect for the interest he has shown in trying to improve the well-being of families. My disapproval has certainly nothing to do with the principle; it has to do with the process.

I would also like to remind the federal government of its commitment to play a key role in promoting and developing physical activity and sport. It certainly has the means to do it. As for the families, the athletes and all the organizations that are working toward that end, they are greatly in need of it.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words in support of the initiative of my colleague, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. I will address some of the remarks of the other members in a few moments.

The bill calls essentially for changes to the Income Tax Act to allow for the deduction of amateur sport fees. It is important to note that the emphasis of the bill is on children. The member has pointed out that with the success of Canada's Olympic bid to host the future games in Vancouver and Whistler, now is the time for the federal government to invest more in our amateur athletes.

Bill C-210 is one way to encourage more young people and families to become involved in amateur sports and to help our struggling amateur athletes. By relieving some of the financial strain on these young athletes, more Canadians will be able to participate.

As the member and others have pointed out, active healthy people help to create a healthier Canada with less pressure on our health care system.

Canadians increasingly understand the advantages of funding amateur sport activities. This bill is one aspect of an overall rethinking on how we can invest in amateur sport and promote healthier living.

There are a number of issues and I think most of them have been covered by the members who have participated in this debate. For example, members have noted the reality about obesity. This is a concern. There used to be Participaction in this country because Canadians were deemed to be so much less fit than the Swedes, than a Swedish man 68 years old or some such thing. We have to admit in all candour that we have not been totally successful in that regard.

The member who proposed the bill noted that we have a generation of couch potatoes. He said that they do nothing besides sit and play Nintendo, but they actually do something besides that. They sit and eat while they are playing Nintendo and therein lies the problem.

When I was growing up many decades ago, we did not have the degree of organized sport that there is today. Kids went out to play and they made up their own games. There was a lack of organization. I do not recall anyone of my generation who really got into organized baseball, soccer or hockey until they were 12 or 13 years old. As young people we shovelled off our own ice or played road hockey. Whatever it was that we did, we did it on our own and consequently there were no costs involved.

We have a much different hands on situation now where children are organized at the tender ages of four and five years old. They are organized to play hockey on Saturday well before daylight in rinks and so on. With those realities come expenses. It is much more expensive than it was in my day when my parents kind of turfed my brother and me out the door and on to the street to play sports.

One of the realities is it is much more expensive. The member's bill would allow some of the money that a family pays in income tax to be used to make it more accessible for their youngsters to participate in sports.

The member for Hillsborough chose to focus on the adult part, that this would allow people who wanted to play at exclusive golf courses to have a tax benefit. I want to reiterate, having spoken to the member who has proposed the bill, that the emphasis is very much on youth and trying to get youth involved at an early age, as he said, to encourage a lifelong participation in amateur sport.

The member for Medicine Hat who also spoke eloquently on this topic assumed that the bill could only be for children of the taxpayer. I am not sure why that would need to be the case. Surely an empty nester or someone who has never had children and sees a child in need who would benefit from playing sports could elect to assist that young person by providing some funding for equipment or for an entry fee so that the child could participate in a sports league and develop.

I must say that while watching our own children participate in athletics in Regina where there is a large inner city aboriginal population, my wife and I are constantly struck by the relatively few members of the aboriginal community who actually participate in those group organized sporting activities. One can only assume that the major reason for that is money. Perhaps they come from single family homes or whatever the case may be but there simply is not enough money left over at the end of the month for many of those families to permit their children to go into an athletic event or participate in a team sport.

If this bill were to go through, there would be nothing to prohibit somebody who does not have children who would not benefit otherwise from saying, “This is an important social achievement and I want to help” and to do so in that way. As the member has pointed out, we do allow for donations. We encourage people to participate in the political process by offering generous tax rebates if they pay income tax. We have tax rebates for donations to charitable organizations, for the United Way, Doctors Without Borders and any other number of worthwhile organizations.

The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore is saying that there should be consideration given to providing this kind of encouragement so that more children will participate in sporting activities. It would get them off their couches and out into organized activities. The end result would be a healthier society for all of us.

In conclusion, I want to commend the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for putting forward a very thoughtful presentation. It is something I will be happy to support when it comes to a vote in this House.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for his initiative. As a former president of the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, this is something with which I am very familiar. Obviously, amateur sport plays a very important role in the development of our society and I would indeed say in the development of Canadian identity. It is very important to so many people at the community level.

Clearly, sports contribute to a healthy lifestyle. We talk about healthy lifestyles in the country. It enables Canadians to live healthier and to live longer.

In this vein, members will recall the Mills report, which was quite descriptive about the health benefits of sport. Regular physical activity can reduce coronary heart disease, colon cancer and non-insulin dependent diabetes by as much as 50%. Something we often talk about around this chamber is the need for members to stay physically active because so many members are at meetings, are sitting down all the time, living with unhealthy lifestyles, and are grabbing a bite here and there. It is not very good, so this is important.

Sport enhances as we know, national pride, particularly through our elite athletes. They proudly honour our values here and abroad and enrich us all by their courage and their persistence. One only has to remember the immense joy and pride we all felt when our men's and women's hockey team won the gold medal last year in Salt Lake City.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

The Canadian women's soccer team.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Also the Canadian women's soccer team, the hon. colleague mentions. It has gone further than anyone would have expected with great heart and determination.

Sport is also a school of life for young Canadians at a time when in schools we see less stress on physical activity. I do not know, maybe the hon. member really liked gym class. The problem is that so many young people do not and we have seen that often fall by the wayside. That is again where the need is to promote that.

The federal government agrees with the ultimate goal of promotion of participation in sports and we agree with the hon. member. It also believes, though, that there are other ways to achieve the goals of the hon. member other than in Bill C-210.

In fact, while it is well intended, the proposed tax measure would be inefficient, it would provide an unfair advantage to sport activities to the detriment of other activities and it would constitute an inappropriate use of the tax system. While I did not hear the member say the exact amount, clearly it would be very costly.

Let us take a few minutes to look at that.

First, the measures proposed in Bill C-210 would be inefficient and would not have any significant impact on the participation rates in sports, which the hon. member and I agree we would like to see increased. According to recent a Statistics Canada survey, only a negligible portion, 2.3% to be exact, of inactive Canadians believe that costs such as amateur sports fees are a barrier to their participation. Indeed, there seems to be a lack of time or interest as most important in terms of the impediment as to why people do not become active.

Second, the proposal would provide an unfair advantage to sport activities to the detriment of other types of activities. For example, the performing arts, and I am thinking in particular of theatre or orchestra subscriptions, also contribute to Canada's social cohesion and identity. Yet they would not be covered by the proposed tax measure.

Next, implementing this measure would be an inappropriate use of the tax system. Why? Because the general taxpayer would be subsidizing another individual's personal consumption choices. I am sure my hon. colleagues would agree that participation in amateur sport is a personal choice and that should not be influenced by the tax system. The tax system should remain neutral as to avoid distorting consumption patterns. I am sure my hon. colleague would note that.

Finally, the measures proposed in this bill would be very costly. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I am bound to tell my hon. colleague that we have figured it would be about $450 million annually to only marginally increase the participation rates, if we accept Statistics Canada's view that 2.3% would be motivated by such legislation. The net result of $450 million is just not worth it.

However make no mistake. The federal government believes in the many benefits of sport and that is why it continues to do much for the development of amateur sport in Canada. Let me quickly provide some examples.

Where it is appropriate, amateur sport is supported through the tax system. For example, registered Canadian amateur athletic associations do not pay income tax, and I know the member agrees with that. These organizations also can issue tax receipts for donations they receive from individuals.

Further, thanks to our political commitment and succession of strategic investments, Sports Canada's annual grants and contribution budget now stands at $77 million. From that budget, Sports Canada provides some $49 million annually to support a wide range of sports organizations that contribute directly to federal sporting objectives.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member will have four minutes when we resume debate in the second hour of this motion.

The time provided for the consideration of private member's business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the minister knows, I have been presenting petitions and have asked questions in question period on behalf of beef, sheep, goat, buffalo and other farmers in the Peterborough area. They have been very hard hit by the BSE crisis, but their voices have tended to be drowned out by cries from the west where the crisis hit hard and early.

Farmers in my area know that this is not a simple issue. International trade in food has serious health and political implications which result in complex negotiations and rules. However our farmers also know that our systems are safe. They know that we took all possible care in tracing back a single cow that did not get into the food chain. Therefore, they are frustrated that we have only managed to partially open the U.S. and some other borders to our products.

Their primary concern is that the border be fully opened. Only secondary are they interested in compensation issues, important though these are. In their frustration, these farmers want to be kept fully informed about what is being done on their behalf to open the border. This is not idle curiosity. They want to know so they can have real input into the process. After all, as those most affected, they might have useful suggestions to make.

As their MP, I have spoken to the minister and attended rural caucus briefings, including the one at our national caucus in North Bay. Also, as an associate member, I was able to take part in public hearings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture during the summer on BSE. I have attended farm meetings in Peterborough and on Parliament Hill. More recently, in Russia I was able to help prepare the way for our delegation to that country, which is part of our efforts to open up yet another market for our products. The Russians have a special interest in livestock.

As a result, I got a pretty good idea of what the minister, his department and others have been doing, but it is not easy to convey all this to farmers struggling to cope with an industry-threatening crisis. That is why I asked the questions and followed up with a request for this late show debate. I wanted the minister and his parliamentary secretary to speak publicly and in detail about what has been done, what is being done and what will be done to deal with the BSE crisis, especially as it affects Ontario.

I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's reply on behalf of the minister.

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to take this opportunity to inform the hon. member for Peterborough of the recent results of the initiatives that have been taken to regain access to the market for live ruminants.

As you know, on May 29, 2003, the Department of Agriculture of the United States, which is commonly called USDA, imposed a total embargo on ruminants and products from these animals coming from Canada. This measure resulted from the finding by Canada of a single animal infected with BSE—which is also commonly called mad cow disease. The suspension by the United States of all imports of Canadian ruminants, as an initial precautionary measure, was foreseeable. Indeed, Canada would have reacted in a similar manner, and it has already done so, if one of its trade partners had detected BSE in its animals.

Since then, we have worked actively and vigorously with our American counterparts and those of other countries to have the borders reopened. Efforts have been made at all levels, including meetings between ministers and their counterparts in different countries, and meetings with the provinces, the United States and the industry.

Members will know that later, on August 8, the United States announced a partial easing of the border security measures banning the Canadian importations. This easing concerned various products, such as boneless meat from beef 30 months old or younger at slaughter. Other products included boneless meat from veal, sheep or goats, beef liver, certain pet foods, the elk meat taken by hunters for personal consumption in wild populations, as well as muskox and caribou.

As we have already said many times, we should not underestimate the importance of this initial step because it is the first time the United States is allowing a product from a country where BSE has been detected to come in the country. May I remind the House that thanks to all those measures, our products have started to cross the border in less than 100 days. This outcome is clearly a tribute to the initiative that the minister and the parliamentary secretary have shown and to the competence and the continued efforts of their respective veterinary services and other officials, on behalf of the Canadian beef industry.

As to the announcement that was made in August, the U.S. secretary has also said that a rule-making process was to be immediately implemented for the importation into the United States of live cattle and their products. A new rule dealing with an animal disease as serious as BSE cannot be taken lightly. The new draft regulation is being prepared and will be published in the U.S. federal register. All stakeholders should be able to comment on the proposed measures. USDA will then analyze all the concerns raised by the stakeholders and give an official answer before publishing the final conditions that will govern the importation of our live cattle by the United States.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his reply, and I know of his great personal interest in this matter. I am pleased that in these various negotiations with different countries, and I mentioned Russia and I could mention the Philippines, we have been encouraging veterinarians to come to Canada and look at our systems so they can make decisions based on their own observations.

As the parliamentary secretary knows, there is a particular concern in eastern Canada about the opening of the border to live animals. Could he give us some indication of when that might happen?

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister is in regular contact with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on this issue. All those concerned, on either side of the border, are well aware of the urgent need to restore the movement of live animals. The secretary has given the Minister of Agriculture of Canada the assurance that the regulatory process would be expedited.

At the same time, the minister is working with other countries to persuade them to lift their ban on live animals. We appreciate the frustration of Canadian producers with the slowness of the process, but they must rest assured that our novel approach is providing hope to our industry.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in my place as a result of the lack of response from the Government of Canada over whether or not our nation will be participating in the international thermonuclear experimental reactor, ITER, fusion research project. If anything demonstrates the leadership vacuum that exists in Canada, it has to be the indecision around this project.

It is unfortunate that for crass political manipulation, the Liberal cabinet postponed making a decision from the scheduled September 18 cabinet meeting to October 2, the date of the Ontario provincial election. We still have no decision because the cabinet minister who is supposed to be championing this project, the Minister of Natural Resources, is opposed to it. Canadians will be shocked to learn the true nature of the minister's opposition to this research project.

The actual leader of the Liberal Party, the member for LaSalle--Émard, has ordered all cabinet ministers not to approve any spending items until after the current Prime Minister has been officially removed from office if they want to keep their seat at the cabinet table.

Just like no decision on missile defence means the loss of thousands of jobs, thousands of jobs hang in the balance of this project because no leadership exists in Ottawa to make decisions.

The other fear is that any decisions made by the outgoing regime will be overturned like the verdict to expel, then accept, and now expel the member for Québec East from the Liberal caucus.

Negotiations are taking place right now in Vienna. Every day is critical if Canada wants to participate in the ITER project. Canada is not participating in those discussions because we do not have an offer on the table. At the negotiating sessions the other international parties allowed Canada to sit at the table, but have moved forward on the assumption that there is no offer from Canada.

A decision has to be made this month, and Canada is once again an international laughing stock because this country suffers from a lack of leadership. Our negotiators have no mandate to negotiate because the Government of Canada is suffering from a crisis in leadership that has paralyzed all decision-making.

It was the former Ontario provincial government, with the able direction of Jim Flaherty, MPP for Whitby--Ajax, who provided the leadership on this project. It was the Province of Ontario that first showed leadership by committing $300 million to the ITER project.

When it was determined that a greater commitment was required, it was the Conservative Government of Ontario that moved forward with a competitive bid. Ironically, the new Premier of Ontario, who has the same political stripe as Ottawa, has endorsed ITER. This is the first test of whether or not there is to be cooperation between Ottawa and Queen's Park.

The ITER project represents a 30 year investment in research and development of $2.3 billion shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the federal and provincial governments. In the case of the federal government, the ITER project represents a commitment to research and development of less than $40 million per year.

Considering the fact that the federal government has already wasted $1 billion on the hated Liberal gun registry and is planning to pour hundreds of millions of dollars more into the black hole of the gun registry, it is clear that this is not a financial decision, but a policy decision. This is not the first time that political expediency has been substituted for sound policy making.

The people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke remember, particularly--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, ITER is a huge research project to study the engineering feasibility of making fusion energy a reality. Because of its cost, such an undertaking can only be implemented through an international grouping of leading countries in the field of fusion.

The original members were the European Union, the United States, Japan and Russia. The United States withdrew in 1997 but rejoined the project early this year along with China and South Korea.

ITER would take 10 years to build and 20 years to operate. It is not an energy project and no electricity will be produced. It is an experiment.

Since 1995 the Government of Canada has supported the efforts of ITER Canada and its predecessor, the ITER Siting Board, to host the ITER project in Canada. ITER Canada is a non-profit consortium of large construction and engineering firms, financial institutions, labour unions, universities and Ontario Power Generation.

The Government of Canada made a $3 million contribution to help cover ITER Canada's bid preparation expenses. In mid-2001 the Government of Canada submitted to the other ITER parties ITER Canada's bid to locate the project adjacent to the Darlington nuclear power station in Clarington, Ontario. The government has participated in the international negotiations and provided diplomatic support to the ITER Canada bid.

Under the offer tabled by Canada in 2001 ITER Canada was to provide the site, the infrastructure and the buildings, and assemble the components provided by the other parties. This was to constitute the Canadian contribution during the construction phase. ITER Canada was to finance its contribution to the project through private sector loans. During the operating phase, ITER Canada planned to sell products and services to the project and use the sales revenues to pay back its loans.

The government agreed to submit ITER Canada's bid on the assumption that the Clarington site enjoyed such cost and other advantages over other potential sites that Canada would be selected to host the project without federal financial support. ITER Canada provided assurances that no federal funding support would be required to support the project. The Government of Canada was advised on numerous occasions that the natural and cost advantages of the Clarington site were such that no federal funding would be needed to attract the ITER project to Canada.

Since then, that circumstance has changed. In 2002 both the European Union and Japan tabled their competitive offers to host the project with substantial sovereign government financial commitments. ITER Canada then solicited financial contributions from the Government of Canada in support of the bid process and its involvement.

It is now evident that billions of dollars will be required to support a Canadian bid. Even if the ITER project was located in another country, Canada, as a party to the project, would still be required to contribute approximately a billion dollars to an overseas site.

The other ITER parties consider fusion to be an integral part of their energy policy and have committed significant financial resources to investigate fusion as an energy option. The Government of Canada, on the other hand, took the considered decision in 1995 not to engage in fusion research as it is not a science nor an energy priority--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke remember, particularly in the communities of Deep River and Chalk River, the lack of leadership that resulted in no decision to fund the Canada neutron facility.

A deal in principle with a government that has no principle is no deal, and I warn the people of Clarington to demand to see any money promised. The people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke were told they had cabinet approval for the Canadian neutron facility and to this day people in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are asking, where is the money?

It is time that the government proceeded to make a quick decision based upon sound science, due diligence and fiscal responsibility. The technology that could have been developed by the Canadian neutron facility could hold the solution to tomorrow's energy crisis, the science for innovative new materials, and research for medical breakthroughs.

Society does not develop methods of bulk electricity production every decade, or even every quarter of a century. In the future where protecting our environment may become even more critical than it is today, and where global warming--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, in contrast to the other ITER parties, Canada has many other energy options to explore and pursue. These include our rich natural resources and our advancement in nuclear fission, hydro and renewable technologies which we can bring to fruition.

Given these developments, the federal government has been reviewing Canada's participation and will soon decide whether to participate financially in the project. Given Canada's science and energy priorities, the potential benefits and costs of the ITER project to Canada need to be carefully assessed relative to other priorities and competing demands on the government, such as education and health care.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:04 p.m.)