Tony Valeri

[Kyoto Protocol, December 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this resolution. It should be noted, as has been mentioned by members previously, that parliamentary approval itself is not required to ratify it; it is a matter of executive power. It is certainly something that the House, maybe through committee, may want to give some thought to changing at some point in the future.

I would like to focus on the implementation plan and the fact that Kyoto cuts across so many policy areas. The implementation plan itself needs very close scrutiny by individual members of Parliament. The real issue today for me, and the issue which the debate should focus on, is the implementation of it, how we make Kyoto best work in the interests of Canadians.

We have certainly seen some progress in the revised plan that was put forward with respect to the sectoral agreements. Upon review it does show that the government has acted on some of the concerns expressed.

The most important element in that plan has to do with how we deal with industry, and the large emitters in particular, on a sector by sector basis. The government has always said it does not want to unfairly disadvantage any sector and it is important that we stay on this track. However, the one further change I would push for in the implementation plan is that we lift the cap when we are negotiating the sectoral covenants with large emitters. Let us negotiate those covenants. Let us assess the risks they may incur and the progress they could make without a cap.

There was some mention of the credit for early action in the plan, but we have to be unequivocal throughout the whole process. The Minister of the Environment and others have indicated that early action is key. They want to encourage corporations to take early action.

In my mind the message we need to send to the economy as a whole is that when companies act early on maximizing energy efficiency and are more profitable as a result of this energy efficiency, we should not punish them but we should reward them. There needs to be incentive for companies to take this on. In going forward we must enshrine full credit for early action as a fundamental principle of the climate change implementation strategy.

On the issue of buying credits I want to be on record that it should not be an exercise in transferring wealth. It is a safety valve that is in the protocol, but it is certainly not the preferred approach. We do not need to transfer this kind of wealth to places like Russia.

With respect to the provincial context, certainly members have concerns about the response from the provinces. We need to address those concerns in a very meaningful way. The implementation plan gives us an opportunity to do that. The implementation plan itself must make Kyoto a reality in a manner that does not tear us apart as a country. Canadians expect no less than that, those in the west, those in the east, and certainly those in the central parts of Canada. We must function as a nation.

There are some challenges. I still have some difficulty with the fact that we do not see the specific numbers. We often talk about federal budgets and the details are always very significant. The implementation plan must contain more detail.

Another is the time constraint that we are up against. We start measuring in 2008, in five years. I am not suggesting that we cannot do it, but we have to be cognizant of the short timeframe. The incentives that we put in place must respond to the timeframe that we have when we start to measure and ultimately meet the Kyoto obligation.

What is it that we should be doing? We need to clearly indicate in the implementation plan the financial instruments we want to employ to reach this target. We need to indicate the financial instruments that deal with the impact of Kyoto that we may see on the economy, how we would offset any sort of downturn that may be experienced. We need to emphasize the increase in economic activity that we may see, instead of what might exist.

We need to look at the whole Kyoto protocol through the innovation lens. We have to make sure that the Kyoto protocol does not contradict what we are saying with respect to the innovation agenda. We have to be cognizant that investment decisions are being made today for many years down the road. When companies are making their investment decisions they need to know the rules of the game in order that they do not find themselves five, eight or ten years down the road in some way impacted as a result of what we are talking about today. That is why it is absolutely important that this implementation plan be as specific as absolutely possible.

I certainly do not see any companies closing up shop and leaving, but I am concerned at the moment that as investment decisions are being made, that they are looking elsewhere in North America. We work in a North American context and in a North American type economy.

We need to look at renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Oil and gas companies for all intents and purposes today are energy companies. They are looking at both renewable and non-renewable energy sources and how best to take advantage of those opportunities. The implementation plan needs to encourage the non-renewable side of the energy source as well.

From a municipal standpoint, there is lots of opportunity and lots of incentives through the FCM to deal with recapturing methane gas through landfill sites. We need to focus on those types of initiatives in the implementation plan.

With respect to the North American context, we are connected by a geographic circumstance and a level of mutually beneficial economic integration without comparison in the world. When the U.S.A. decided not to ratify the protocol, it fundamentally changed the context of the Kyoto assumptions for a lot of people. We have to be cognizant of that.

It is also not as simple as saying that the U.S. is now doing nothing. In fact the United States of America is doing quite a lot to deal with this issue. We could look at it on a state by state basis and California in particular, in terms of its economy and size, and it is taking action.

We need to treat this issue in sufficient depth to mitigate its impact on the Canadian economy. We must also understand that we need to deal with and make progress on greenhouse gas reduction. We also need to keep in mind in that North American context that the U.S. is the fiercest competitor for capital in North America. I and many other members in the House want to ensure that Canada is very well positioned to deal with attracting direct foreign investment in Canada. We need to have a comprehensive strategy and we need to look at how Kyoto impacts our relationship.

Yesterday the member for LaSalle—Émard talked about reference to a special parliamentary committee. It is a vehicle that we should be taking advantage of to scrutinize the implementation plan in very clear detail which is required.

We have made progress. Back on March 7, 2002 we agreed to build on the existing bilateral cooperation on climate change with the United States. We need to pursue that more effectively.

What are some of the things that we could do with respect to the implementation plan? Strengthening compliance standards under the Energy Efficiency Act might be something to consider when we consider that the act covers almost 60% of the energy type products that are being used. We should look at how we could deal with the regulatory regime and how to harmonize our approach to these compliance standards from a North American context. We should look at fuel efficiency standards. We should look at California, look at New York, look at Canada. We should combine our approach to fuel efficiency standards. It comprises about 25% of the auto market in North America. It is very important.

We need immediate budgetary measures to show that we are serious about the implementation of the accord. We must speak to issues such as a national building retrofit strategy. We must look at collaborating with labour, business and municipalities. The U.S. has already done it, in providing a $2,000 tax credit to people for improving their homes or building their homes to certain standards. The U.S. is doing it and we could also do it.

In summary, there should be no caps on growth. We should pursue the sectoral agreement with large emitters. We need a climate of investment certainty. We must operate within the North American economic space. We need an implementation strategy that stresses and reflects partnership and collaboration with the provinces, business, labour and consumers.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I dispute what the hon. member is saying in terms of suggesting that the government and members of parliament in this House are here to support a particular company and its sector, and that we are not in fact all striving to improve the lot for companies right across the country. I guess it is easy at times in opposition to throw these comments out there. However I must reflect on whether the hon. member is being serious when he suggests that members would sit idly by and watch the demise of the microbrewery sector.

I enjoy microbreweries from time to time along with others in the House. While hon. members across the way find it quite convenient to be throwing out these types of things in the House I find them lacking substance. I suggest that once the information is analyzed and there is an understanding, there would be many a member in this House who would support the plight of microbreweries and ensure that they remain competitive, that markets are open to them and Canadian small brewers are not less competitive than foreign small brewers selling in Canada. That is the objective and certainly one that members in the House can all share and support.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that when members get up in the House and contribute to debate I, unlike the hon. member opposite, believe they are serious about what they are saying and what they would like to see happen. I understand that emotions sometimes run high with my Bloc friends across the way. However we all have microbreweries in various parts of the country.

To suggest the government would sit idly by or is already sitting idly by and encouraging the demise of the microbrewery sector is incorrect. When the committee heard from brewers about their concerns it was acknowledged that the report was presented and there were issues the finance department was analyzing.

It is fair to say we want to ensure we have a vibrant microbrewery sector in Canada. However it is difficult to amend something that is not there. How do we amend a piece of legislation when the component that requires amending is not in it? We are talking about a tax measure. This is an administrative bill. While I welcome the enthusiasm across the way it should be directed toward a bill which could achieve the objective being proposed: to ensure microbreweries are competitive and that we do not continue to see the demise described by my hon. colleague. That objective will be best served when we have full information and analysis. The information is now in and I am awaiting it.

This is an important issue for parliamentarians. Parliament will not wait forever. The information has been submitted. It will be incumbent on the people in the finance department to look at the information, see how the initiatives would impact brewers and decide how best to address their concerns.

I dispute the criticism that the government is not concerned and is not doing anything. This is an administrative process that started in 1997. What is being asked for is an amendment to the Excise Tax Act. In terms of the tax there is a body of information that requires analysis and understanding. An exchange will take place. I am confident that in moving forward we will see a resolution of the concerns the hon. member has outlined.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words this afternoon on this excise tax act in front of us, Bill C-47. Sitting in the House and listening to the debate, I have heard a fair bit of discussion about microbreweries, about the competitiveness of microbreweries with respect to our U.S. counterparts, and also about the need for amendment in this piece of legislation so that we can address our concerns for and with the microbreweries. It should be pointed out that Bill C-47 is not an appropriate vehicle for implementing these types of reductions in the excise duty on beer. The bill does not deal with any of the taxation issues for beer.

That being said, though, I think it is fair for members in the House to have this discussion and put forward their perspectives with respect to microbreweries. It is fair to state, and I think it is a statement that all members of parliament would make, that in no way should we as a government or as opposition members or as members of parliament be putting forward taxation policies to try to prevent the growth of industry or industry sectors or of small business. Certainly the objective of being in parliament is to try to assist, to ensure that small businesses continue to prosper, to ensure that in fact those small businesses become larger businesses and that we are able to attract multinationals to this country so we can provide opportunities for young Canadians to stay and continue to contribute.

I wanted to make that point at the outset because I know that the discussion this afternoon really focused on the issue of microbreweries. I personally do not have a problem with what is being said with respect to microbreweries, but I think the emphasis is misplaced. It certainly should not be an emphasis of Bill C-47.

As I am sure members of parliament are aware, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance mentioned this last Friday, I think it was, when this debate began, it should also be known that Department of Finance officials are in fact reviewing proposals put forward by the beer industry to address concerns. It is not that this issue is not being given any weight. It is not that the government is not aware that there are some issues that need to be addressed with respect to this sector. It is just that Bill C-47 is not the vehicle whereby we can put forward an amendment and deal with it, since it really is a work in progress. There is obviously a commitment that once the analysis and the consultation are completed we can decide whether excise duty and excise tax reductions are warranted.

However, I think the case needs to be made. I am sure that on both sides of the House we will find both support and, I dare say, some opposition to what is being asked for. That is the purpose of having debate. That is the purpose of conducting these consultations. It is the purpose of completing an analysis.

I would suggest to my hon. colleagues across the way that there is an openness on behalf of the government to deal with this issue, but the analysis and the consultations need to be completed. Then we can certainly have that debate, which I would certainly welcome. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues from the Bloc as they put forward their perspective on this. It is one that we need to certainly take note of as this debate continues. Members from both sides of this House certainly have something to say on this issue.

It is also important to note that Bill C-47 is a direct result of a discussion paper on the Excise Act review, which the Department of Finance and CCRA released back in 1997. In coming from 1997 to where we are today, obviously numerous discussions took place with various sectors that were to be affected. It is also important to mention that the beer industry indicated to the government, as I have been told, to continue with Bill C-47 and set aside its own industry perspective for the moment with assurances that we would be dealing with issues pertinent to the beer industry. Therefore the bill went forward and in fact the report has been provided to the finance department and that consultation and analysis are now being completed. That is my understanding.

Hon. members across the way are calling for an amendment because we need to deal with this right away. I do believe that there is an urgency to this matter, but I think it is unfair to say that the matter is not being considered or not being dealt with through the proper channels. Whether or not it is moving fast enough is always an issue for debate and is probably an issue that we will not resolve here today.

With respect to the beer sector, I think it is important to ensure that those points are made. The concerns of the brewers really centre on issues relating to point of imposition, warehousing, licensing requirements, loss allowances and controls on beer exports. These are complicated issues and before any progress in discussions between the government and the brewing industry can be achieved, I think it is fair to say that we need to do the analysis and that further work is required to assess the impact of these proposals. This type of work would not be readily completed within the timeframe originally contemplated by the Excise Act review. I wanted to make those points because we did hear quite often during the debate about the issue surrounding the brewers' association or the brewers themselves.

In recent years, it became quite obvious to both industry and government that the Excise Act, the excise framework, needed to be modernized. That is why the consultations began back in 1997. Industry certainly has introduced new technology, product marketing, and various distribution initiatives that the existing Excise Act was not equipped to accommodate. This is probably an example of where the government machinery was once again trying to catch up to the innovations in the private sector. It is fair to say, as my hon. colleague from across the way said earlier, that there are good aspects to the bill and there are reasons to support this type of legislation.

It is also important when we talk about the competitiveness of sectors and companies to pay attention to the compliance costs associated with that industry. It is certainly fair to say that pervasive controls in the act impose high compliance costs on the industry and impair the competitiveness of Canadian producers. That is the broader issue of dealing with the command and control structures of regulation versus the best practices approach to regulation. The act moves toward improving the issue of competitiveness of Canadian producers.

Given the increase in foreign competition in Canadian markets for beverage and non-beverage alcohol, the government, through consultation, found that the problem needed to be addressed. As I said earlier, Bill C-47 is a result of the discussion paper on the Excise Act review which was released back in 1997. It was in fact out of that review that we found three guiding principles, three goals that essentially guided the configuration of this piece of legislation.

The modern legislative and administrative framework introduced in the bill will generate stable and secure revenues needed to address the contraband pressures that are certainly out there. It was found that this can be achieved without imposing unrealistic or unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on industry. That needs to be the objective of any piece of legislation that comes forward in the House. We must always consider the costs associated with implementing legislation and try to balance the benefits of legislation with costs associated with it when it comes to issues like excise tax.

This piece of legislation certainly seems to strike that type of balance, whereby we do not in fact impose unrealistic and unnecessary costs or administrative burdens. It also helps to address the ongoing concern over the smuggling and illegal production of alcohol. The intent is to certainly ensure that the spirits industry, to name one, is no longer hindered by outdated or onerous controls over premises and equipment and that with these controls removed businesses will have the greater flexibility they require to organize their commercial affairs to respond more quickly to market changes. We all know that in an increasingly globalized economy those pressures to change certainly come faster, companies themselves must have flexibility and government should not encumber that type of flexibility through regulatory burden.

If I can just speak for one moment with respect to distillers, there is certainly an issue that I want to get on record. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance who helped resolve this issue with respect to the concerns of distillers. Now I urge the government to follow through on the commitment and proceed as agreed so that we do not in any way encumber this sector through regulation.

My hon. colleagues have talked about small business and the importance of supporting small business. With respect to vintners, it is also important to mention that the bill does in fact deal with the fact that all vintners must be licensed. It also stipulates that those with sales under $50,000 in the previous 12 months do and will continue to qualify for the small manufacturer's tax exemption. Therefore, for a very small vintner's operation the bill does in fact maintain that exemption.

The bill is really an administrative bill. I think it is important to emphasize that. It is not a bill dealing with tax measures. It is important to mention that the bill does introduce modern collection tools to help address the government's ongoing concerns regarding a number of issues, certainly one of them being the smuggling of alcohol. It certainly enables CCRA to improve its level of service to clients and its overall administration of the excise framework for both alcohol and tobacco.

To go back to that whole debate about regulatory burden, I certainly believe that in today's era of innovation and an innovation agenda, it is incumbent on the government to ensure that the regulatory burden, the making of regulations, is an important part of that innovation agenda. We really need to be able to create a framework whereby our companies are able to innovate, not to be regulated from a command and control perspective but rather one whereby they are able to innovate from a best practices or an evidence based approach to meet standards and requirements that we as a country and certainly as a government would have.

Bill C-47 would move toward reducing the regulatory burden and compliance costs. It is important to mention that. It is also important to mention that under the bill CCRA would improve its overall administration and level of service to its clients.

To sum up, the new excise framework would ensure excise duties on alcohol and tobacco were collected in a more effective and efficient manner, something we always strive for. It would provide for an array of modern administrative and enforcement tools which are important to ensure compliance with the new act.

The new framework for the taxation of spirits, wine and tobacco products would provide greater flexibility for businesses to respond to the challenge of organizing their commercial affairs. This goes back to the pressures companies feel in promoting and creating new markets and the pressures they feel due to globalization and the competitive nature of the industry.

Bill C-47 would provide for enhanced protection of excise revenues. It would provide for improved administration and lower compliance costs. Again, this goes back to the whole regulatory issue. The bill would provide for a more simple and certain taxation structure, something we should all be striving for not only in excise taxes but in personal and corporate tax. I am sure that going forward there will be many an opportunity to debate the issue with members of the House.

I have addressed a number of issues I wanted to put on record with respect to the administrative nature of the legislation. I made the point about brewers because the issue is important. I do not for one moment want to leave Canadians with the impression that brewers would not be dealt with or considered in the larger context of their issues. From 1997 to today there has been an engagement with the brewers who felt their issues could not be dealt with in the timeframe that was set out.

A proposal has been put forward with respect to the sector. The finance department is looking at the issues outlined in the proposal and will provide the analysis. We can then have a debate and discussion about how we might best deal with the issues put forward by the brewers.

[Billy Green, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, recent polls, studies and articles have illustrated the lack of historical knowledge in Canada. It has been disappointing.

I would like to share with the House the remarkable story of Billy Green, an unknown to some but an important hero from our past. At the age of 19 Green played a crucial and central role in the battle of Stoney Creek during the War of 1812. After coming across a camp of American troops in June of 1813 he ran many miles to inform the British at Burlington Heights. Green then led the British ambush, routing the Americans and forcing their retreat.

I believe that it is the role of the national government to support the promotion of Canadian history. Sadly, obstacles still remain in the way. It is time for the national government to fund the production of stories like Billy Green's. It is time to embrace our unknown past.

[Steel Industry, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, after a 201 safeguard investigation on imported steel, U.S. President Bush enacted tariffs of up to 30%. In Mexico steel tariffs are now as high as 35%. A meeting was held earlier this week, chaired by the Secretary of State for Finance, with the steel industry, the union and members of parliament to discuss the real threat of import diversion into Canada.

Given the integration of the North American steel sector, what is the government prepared to do to ensure that our market is not flooded with diverted steel?

[Regulatory Reform, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.

Canadian companies are faced with an increasingly complicated regulatory process. After investigating, I found that some departments have moved to a performance based system while some have retained the old command and control approach.

When will the government finally move toward a government-wide performance based system of making regulations to reduce the regulatory burden and encourage innovation?

[The Environment, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. There has been a lot of discussion on the issue of brownfield sites and municipalities are suggesting changes to the tax system to allow the deduction of the capital costs of remediation in the year incurred.

Other G-7 countries are ahead of Canada in dealing with this issue. When can we expect action on this file so that more brownfield development opportunities can be acted upon?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. As he has indicated, he has every right to put forward his perspective and defend his constituency. He has done a good job of doing so.

He made reference to the exemption for remote areas and small aircraft. I am sure the hon. member realizes there is a provision in the bill that speaks to remote areas and exemptions for smaller aircraft. The question is whether the communities he is speaking of fall into that category. When the bill was proposed there was concern for the more remote areas. There is such a provision in the bill.

I would ask the hon. member to look at the bill and see whether the areas in his riding fall into that category and meet the exemption. I hope they do.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. This is a crown corporation that is being created with respect to the infrastructure. The original announcement was for a strategic foundation. There is a difference.