Debates of April 14th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I made the request for an adjournment debate regarding the response I received from the President of the Treasury Board to my question of February 11 concerning another multibillion dollar government reorganization, I was surprised, as were all Canadians, to see that this question is now linked to the Gomery commission on the fraudulent misappropriation of taxpayers' dollars.

Canadians know that it was the Prime Minister as the right-hand man to former leader Jean Chrétien who presided over the loss of tens of millions of dollars to such programs as the $2 billion gun registry and the missing millions from the defence department.

Canadians understand that when the Prime Minister chooses to take credit for being in control of Canada's finances on matters of Canada's deficit, he is in effect taking credit for the loss of tens of millions of dollars as the one in control of financial decisions. Control means total control. Taking credit for the deficit follows taking credit for all decisions regarding the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

Shortly after Mr. Chrétien appointed the Prime Minister as finance minister in the 1990s, changes occurred, such as the removal of financial comptrollers, which eliminated financial oversight functions in Canada's public service in departments like national defence, Solicitor General, HRDC and for whoever was reviewing the so-called unity fund that directed dollars to feed the sponsorship program.

The Prime Minister's removal of financial comptrollers allowed for that scandal of the waste of millions of taxpayers' dollars. Canadians recall famous fiascos such as the Jane Stewart HRDC scandal and the current Deputy Prime Minister's role in the thoroughly discredited Liberal gun registry, a program that she stated would only cost $2 million and we are now told by the government funded CBC it will cost $2 billion. The gun registry is also implicated in a sponsorship scandal.

The President of the Treasury Board in getting up and bragging that the position of the comptroller general and the rehiring of department comptrollers to re-establish internal audits conveniently ignores the fact that it was his government that cut those checks and balances out of the system in the first place.

It was the Prime Minister as finance minister who cut the funding to those positions as one of his first acts as Mr. Chrétien's finance minister. The public service reorganization is at the root of the Gomery commission inquiry into government corruption, the removal of accountability in government financial decisions.

As finance minister and the vice-chairman of the Treasury Board, the Prime Minister participated in every major financial decision of the Chrétien government. What Canadians fear from another so-called government bureaucratic reorganization is the hidden agenda of the Liberal Party whenever it announces reorganization. The last reorganization led to the sponsorship scandal. Let us not forget the other waste of taxpayers' dollars in the name of so-called efficiency and reorganization.

Canadians fear that the only lesson the Prime Minister seems to have learned so far from the Gomery inquiry into the Liberal Party corruption is the consequence of getting caught. It is the terrible record of poorly conceived and administered politically motivated government programs like the gun registry and the sponsorship program that frightens Canadians.

In responding to my question the President of the Treasury Board stated that most of the missing millions that had been stolen from the Department of National Defence had been recovered. What was missing from that comment, and I look forward to a detailed response, is how much and from whom.

At the time it was stated that there was evidence that this was a multimillion dollar fraud ring involving at least two departments, national defence and public works, and that for $146 million or $168 million to have been stolen, others had to have been involved--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I am wrong but if memory serves me right the office of the comptroller general was decimated under the Conservatives prior to our taking office, but I am not absolutely sure.

I want to talk a little more about some of the good things that we have been able to do. Not everything is doom and gloom.

The government has made a strong and clear commitment to improve effectiveness and provide better value for Canadians' tax dollars. I am pleased to say that we have made some significant progress in the quality of the services that we offer and I know we have to make more progress.

During the last decade, the Government of Canada has significantly increased its use of technology to improve services. For example, about 70% of our financial transactions, payments and transfers are now done through the electronic banking network that we have established with Canadian financial institutions. The Canada Revenue Agency has become one of the most automated and efficient tax agencies in the world.

I am proud to say that Canada has earned a well-deserved reputation as a global leader in e-government. The 2005 Accenture report on customer service for citizens ranked Canada first among 22 countries in e-government for the fifth consecutive year. Canada has once again been ranked number one because of our citizen centred vision to meet the growing expectations of our citizens and businesses.

The Government of Canada continues to provide high quality programs and services for Canadians. For example, all of our 130 most commonly used services are now online. We also recognize that Canadians look for access through traditional means. We are working to improve telephone and in person services. Service Canada is part of this effort.

Our permanent goal is to provide easy access to programs and services that are better suited to the changing needs of Canadians, whether they live in urban, rural or remote communities.

The government has made significant progress on a wide range of fronts. We will continue to focus on improving services, lowering costs and providing better services for people across the country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what happened to all the missing millions at the Department of National Defence? Why is there no public inquiry into the amounts of money greater than that which was defrauded from taxpayers from the sponsorship program?

So far, no charges have been laid. Only one person has been identified in that scandal and that person, the government claims, single-handedly masterminded this fraud and now is living in the Caribbean. I am informed that he is being sued by the computer company Hewlett-Packard, which got stuck with the bill for this, and DND for $100 million. That is $46 million to $68 million less than what the government tells us was stolen. Who got the $46 million to $68 million that is not in the lawsuit? Only a public inquiry with full disclosure similar to the Gomery commission inquiry into government corruption will provide those answers.

I look forward to a government announcement of a public inquiry into what is behind the missing millions of dollars from the Department of National Defence.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems rather sad that at a time when things are going so well for this country, low interest rates, decent unemployment rates, no deficit, we are paying down the debt, that all the opposition can centre on are all kinds of scandals and inquiries. We do not like what happened. That is why Paul Martin set up the Gomery inquiry. That is why he took all of the steps that he did, but it does not prevent us from being--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Order. May I remind the hon. member not to use names and refer to titles please.

The hon. member for Edmonton--Leduc.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up question to one I had months ago with respect to capital cost allowance rates. It is a very specific thing, so for people observing this debate I want to explain what it is.

Capital cost allowance is a tax deduction for business related capital property and provides for the depreciation of these assets. The CCA rate is applicable to about 44 classes and is intended to reflect as closely as possible the useful lives of these assets. This rate essentially allows companies to write off their capital equipment at an accelerated rate. It allows them to turn over their equipment. There are two reasons, two large reasons I would argue, that we should improve this.

First, it makes companies more productive, more efficient, and puts our manufacturing sector on a level playing field. That is very important. One of the things the Conservative Party thinks needs to happen is an increase in our productivity here in Canada. The gap between ourselves and the United States has been increasing certainly over the past number years. As well there are the emerging economies, India, China, Brazil. We are very concerned in terms of our future standard of living.

The second reason is actually a stated goal of many Canadians, which would be environmental reasons. It allows companies to adopt newer technologies and newer equipment which is more environmentally friendly, and more energy efficient, which should certainly be a goal of the government.

This is in line with what the finance committee recommended. It was the 14th recommendation in the prebudget submission that:

The federal government revise Canada's capital cost allowance rates by 31 March 2005 such that they meet three criteria:

--similar asset classes are treated similarly;

--Canadian rates are similar to the rates for comparable asset classes in the United States and other countries; and

--Canadian rates reflect the useful life of the assets.

Moreover, the government should review these rates annually to ensure that they continue to meet the three criteria identified.

The government in its budget adopted some measures with respect to capital cost allowance rates, and we support those. They are limited, but we support those. I think the biggest one missing is to have a universal increase in the capital cost allowance rates, particularly for the manufacturing sector.

The Canadian manufacturers and exporters have called for this for a number of years, have argued very strongly for it. We need to support them. We need to support our manufacturing sector industries. They employ Canadians. Generally they pay very well. We need to have Canadians succeed in that sector.

I am calling on the government to adopt basically what was in the finance committee report and to change the capital cost allowance rates in the ways in which the Canadian manufacturers and exporters and other groups have called on the government to do.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is excellent and it is worthy of some kind of debate. It is always of concern to the federal government as to whether our capital cost allowances are in line with our major competitors.

I would argue with the hon. member that the Government of Canada has responded in large part to the finance committee's report, specifically in one unique area.

Let me set it up first by saying that we are always looking at ways in which Canadian companies can be more competitive. We are always looking at whether our corporate tax rates are in fact competitive. Currently, Canada has a slight advantage over the Americans in terms of our corporate tax rate. Budget 2005 tries to maintain that slight advantage by reducing the corporate tax rate from something in the order of 21% down to 19%.

The other area is where the hon. member is in fact correct. What is important to a corporation is not only its tax rate on its income, but also its ability to write off assets.

I would like to direct the hon. member's attention to budget 2005, in particular the accelerated write-off rates with respect to capital cost allowance for environmentally friendly technology. This is a specific example where the government has gone away from the useful life concept, that is how long will this particular asset last in a normal working circumstance, to an accelerate write-off.

The government has said on pages 182 and 183 in budget 2005, for a particular public policy reason, that capital assets used for environmentally friendly technology will enjoy an accelerated write-off, much like it did in 2004 budget when we said computer technology assets did not reflect the useful life of those assets. Therefore, accelerated the time that corporations could write them off.

In budget 2005, I point the hon. member to page 183 concerning class 43.1 assets. These assets include wind turbines, electrical generating equipment, small hydroelectric facilities, stationary fuel cells, photovoltaics and equipment powered by waste fuels, equipment that recovers biogas from landfill and equipment used to convert biomass into bio-oil. We can see the government's thinking on a matter such as that, which is to encourage industry to invest in those kinds of assets and put the necessary capital into those kinds of assets in order for energy to be generated from what are effectively environmentally friendly sources.

The government has responded to the very issue that the hon. member raises. The issue he raises is an important and has in large measure been responded to in budget 2005 in a specific area.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the key is that it has only been partly responded to with certain issues. Depreciation rates are accelerated for pipelines, combustion turbines for electricity generation, electricity transmission, cable for telecommunication infrastructure and rates will increase for investment in more efficient renewable energy generation, including cogeneration. However, the specific area I would like the parliamentary secretary to address is the manufacturing sector, which any industrialized nation needs to have as basis of its economy.

The manufacturing sector is 18% of our GDP and accounts for a lot of the high paying jobs in Canada. I want to read from the CME's 2005 budget analysis. It gives some credit to the government for the budget, but I want to read the following statement:

--the government's failure to accelerate depreciation allowances for manufacturing equipment is a major disappointment. It is clear from this budget that while the government is willing to spend heavily on one hand, and use the tax system for environmental policy purposes on the other, it just doesn't get it when it comes to building a competitive investment environment in Canada. After building up expectations that the federal government would address the challenges facing Canadian industry, the few measures introduced in this year's budget--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the government does in fact get it. The government uses a variety of instruments in order to keep Canada in a competitive environment.

The first and foremost area where the government gets it is in the reduction of corporate tax rates. As I say, we have gone from 28% down to 21%. Budget 2005 brings us down to 19%.

In specific areas in budget 2004 and budget 2005 we have responded to the very concerns of the hon. member. We looked at the useful life of computer assets and high tech equipment and said that the technology was changing so quick that having a five year write-off was silly and that a three year write-off would be better. We did that in budget 2004.

In budget 2005 we specifically said that we would go off the useful life concept in order to stimulate investment in a particular area. If there are other areas that have--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and ask about some new proposed Transport Canada regulations, which to people in northern Saskatchewan are known as the Liberal canoe registry.

People at home might wonder what a Liberal canoe registry. I will tell them.

These new regulations would require individuals who operate commercial vessels, taking people onto the water for money, including outfitters, guides, adventure tourism operators, commercial fishermen, to take a course commonly known as a captain's licence type course, which they can only currently receive in Vancouver or in Halifax.

First, travelling to Vancouver or Halifax from northern Saskatchewan is quite expensive. Second, the cost of the course itself is approximately $350. It is a three day course. It is completely useless for my constituents in northern Saskatchewan, many of whom have spent their entire lives on the water. A requirement of the course is to literally learn how to navigate in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. That is quite different from navigating on a creek or a small lake in northern Saskatchewan. This type of one size fits all regulation is completely misguided and unneeded.

What looks like a good idea cooked up in a downtown Ottawa office tower, looks only half baked on the ground in northern Saskatchewan. I would like to challenge the Transport Canada bureaucrats and the Liberal politicians, who are pushing this, to come to northern Saskatchewan and look on the ground. Come and see what is going on in northern Saskatchewan and then try to tell me that this is a good idea.

I do not know how anyone could possibly think it would be a good idea to send northern aboriginal guides to a captain's licence course in Vancouver or Halifax. Why should they learn how to navigate in the middle of the Pacific Ocean so they can have some employment for three months in northern Saskatchewan, taking people out and guiding on traditional hunts? This is utterly ridiculous.

These regulations, if enacted, will have a very real negative effect on employment in my riding in northern Saskatchewan. I come from the poorest riding in the country, with the lowest average income of any riding. Over half of my constituents are aboriginal. Employment opportunities are very limited and a lot of the employment opportunities that do exist for aboriginals and otherwise are in the industries of outfitting, guiding, commercial fishermen and adventure tourism. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

If these regulations are enacted, people will lose their jobs for no good reason. They will have to go to Vancouver or Halifax and take a captain's licence course. They cannot afford this. It costs $350 to take a three day course. This is completely ridiculous.

We have seen a government that obviously does not care and a government that obviously does not understand northern Saskatchewan. If the government did understand, it would not try to force this down the throats of the residents of my riding, which is what they are trying to do.

We have seen $2 billion sent down the creek with the--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking these questions and raising the issue of safety. Safety is a serious topic that deserves serious attention.

The safety of small vessel operations, including the safety of guides and outfitters, is as important to us as the safety of a coastal fishing vessel or a deep-sea freighter.

We recognize that guides and outfitters are by nature, resourceful, capable and independent. Their roots are founded in members of the first nations and the explorers, trappers and settlers who first navigated the waterways of Canada. Inappropriate rules for this industry sector would not be accepted nor would they have the desired effect on safety.

Every year in Canada too many lives are lost as a result of small vessel accidents. We know that on average there are 150 pleasure craft related fatalities and 30 to 40 lives are lost on commercial vessels every year. The number of incidents with injuries, property loss or environmental damage is many times higher.

Marine accidents can be prevented or mitigated by appropriate safety measures that reduce risk and eliminate unsafe operations. These incidents and fatalities occur for a wide variety of reasons but usually there is a human error involvement. Often the vessel is deficient in some respect, the weather is bad and, coupled with errors in judgment or lack of knowledge, things go terribly wrong. If effective safety equipment is available and timely rescue efforts are launched, lives and property may still be saved.

Every size and type of vessel can get into trouble. Accordingly, there is a multi-faceted strategy to address safety. Some of the items in the strategy are well-known and others are not. What may come as a surprise is that the rules referenced by the question from the hon. member have been in place for many years.

All vessels, except for very small, low-powered pleasure craft, must be registered or licensed. Licensing helps us to understand what kind of vessels are out there and where they are. Licence numbers make the work of rescue and enforcement agencies easier.

The licence for a small commercial vessel costs $50 every five years. As regulations evolve, Transport Canada is looking at changes that would make the licensing fee requirement less difficult for outfitters registering multiple vessels. The department is also introducing new standards to make the use of life jackets more widespread.

Due to numerous accidents, the crewing regulations were changed in 1997 to introduce a requirement for basic safety training for operators of small commercial vessels. The original due date for this training was July 2002. In order to give sufficient time for operators to meet this requirement, a policy was developed to allow operators until 2007 to receive this basic safety training, provided they have signed up for a course.

Non-powered vessels, such as canoes, do not require a licensed captain. Consultations are now underway with small commercial vessel operators about the proposed training requirements for persons in charge of these vessels.

Regulation and common sense require all vessels to be properly constructed. Vessels are also required to carry lifesaving safety equipment such as life jackets or personal flotation devices. Many of those who debate the need for these requirements may not understand the risks or do not place a priority on safety.

That being said, regulations, standards and safety programs are constantly evolving in order to improve safety. Our regulatory processes and our commitment to consultation will help to develop safety requirements for guides and outfitters vessels that are reasoned and reasonable.

At this point, the challenge is to engage these stakeholders in a meaningful way in order that that we fully understand the safety--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that spontaneous response. I, quite frankly, cannot wait until that is played on the radio tomorrow because the residents of northern Saskatchewan will be laughing at that answer and will be laughing at the Liberal government for continuing to believe that registering canoes in some way will increase the safety of residents of northern Saskatchewan. It is preposterous and I cannot wait until that is played.

It will definitely help me be re-elected for one thing, but it will also serve as another example of how the Liberal government does not care about northern Saskatchewan, does not understand northern Saskatchewan and, quite frankly, does not give a damn about northern Saskatchewan. I think that has been made increasingly clear when we hear that answer. I must say that I am flabbergasted that the government believes that registering canoes is a good idea. It is just ridiculous.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only flabbergasting thing that I hear is one individual, a member only caring about one sector of the country and ignoring the west, ignoring the east, and ignoring the Great Lakes.

We on this side of the House are responsible. We are going to ensure safety from coast to coast to coast. We are working with the hon. member's constituency. If he needs training, and if there are more than 10 people who need to be trained, people will go out there to train them.

The hon. member is grandstanding in order to say, “I will get re-elected”. Well, I have news for him. On this side of the House, we care about safety and uniformity from coast to coast. If the hon. member thinks that his little part of the world is an exception, I have news for him. It is still part of Canada. It is still part of what we consider to be regulations from coast to coast to coast.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:44 p.m.)