Werner Schmidt

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that this debate has been labelled a budget debate, but I do not think that is what have. We have a debate on legislation but not budget legislation. The title of the bill is “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments”. It is not a budget bill at all. It is simply an authorization for the Minister of Finance to spend some money.

Let us compare that to the title of Bill C-43. I notice the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has already recognized the significance of this difference. He recognizes that this is merely a bill to give him carte blanche to spend some money. If the hon. parliamentary secretary would listen, he would understand. Bill C-43 says, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005”. Notice that in the titles we have a complete differentiation between the legislations.

I would like to make a further comparison. This is a complete copy of Bill C-48. There is one good thing about this. At least it conserved paper. It has exactly one page printed on both sides, but four pages are blank.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope it would not set a precedent but I know enough about how things operate in the judicial system and in the House that someone, 5 or 10 years from now, would come into the House and say, “Remember when in 2005 we passed retroactive legislation and it is now enforced” . I do not like that kind of precedence and, in fact, I oppose it.

The example the hon. member used about retroactively fining someone who broke the speed limit, that is a possibility but I do not think it is very realistic. However the example I gave in my speech had to do with changing the licensing requirements or changing the taxation with regard to a particular industry that was given the assurance that these were the conditions that would be provided as it does business.

I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre knows only too well that when a lease is struck for a particular building, a piece of land or commercial enterprise very often if one knows that inflation is going to take place, then there is an escalator clause so adjustments can be made. However this should be told in advance rather than retroactively by saying that these were the conditions but, guess what, we do not like them any more.

That is a very bad precedent and a bad example to set. We should amend the legislation in such a way that we can preserve the sensitive information but, at the same time, meet the intent and the purpose of some of the historians that they want to meet.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to that. If there was ever a group of constituents who like honesty and stability and who want to feel secure in the legislation, it is the constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. They would like to believe that a promise made is a promise kept and they believe that this legislation denies the promise that was earlier given to these people.

There is a group of people who want genealogical records and we want to give them those genealogical records but we do not need to release everything that is in here and that is precisely what my amendment to the committee is going to be. We should not have a omnibus type of release that allows this to take place. It would be selective information that is released, information that is readily available on tombstones for example, there is no problem with that whatsoever. That should be released.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. However, that is not the issue. At no point in my speech did the hon. member hear me make a criticism of the points he made. What I was criticizing, and will continue to criticize, was the retroactivity of this legislation in the face of a guaranteed confidentiality and secrecy given to the information.

The information collected today is different from one section to another is true. A lot of it is used for planning. The government uses it to plan for educational programs, for agricultural programs and for other programs.

For example, I notice that special census forms are put together for farmers and that is done for planning purposes. The interesting thing is the farmer who completes that information today can say that he wants the information released 92 years from now or not. Should the government have access to that information now? Yes. Are the instructions clear that this shall be used for government planning purposes? Absolutely.

What is not clear is this information was to be held in secrecy and confidence and the legislation destroys that. I object to that.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through some of the provisions of the proposed legislation. I want to begin with the stated purpose of this legislation. In the summary statement it says:

This enactment removes a legal ambiguity in relation to access to census records made between 1910 and 2005.

I want to deal with that ambiguity. Without getting into the details of the legal interpretation, I would like to draw to the attention of members the instructions given to the enumerators who completed the census questionnaire in 1911. Parenthetically, we should observe that until 1970 enumerators completed the census questionnaire. It was not until 1971 and later that individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire themselves.

Here are the directions that were given to the enumerators to answer anyone who had concerns about the use of the information collected by the enumerator:

Every officer or other person employed in any capacity on census work is required to keep inviolate the secrecy of the information gathered by the enumerators and entered in the schedules or forms. An enumerator is not permitted to show his schedules to any other person…[T]he same obligation of secrecy is imposed to commissioners and other officers or employees of the outside service, as well as upon every officer, clerk or other employee of the Census and Statistics Offices at Ottawa. The facts and statistics of the census may not be used except for statistical compilation, and positive assurance should be given on this point if a fear is entertained by any person that they may be used for taxation or any other object.

This was assented to by the governor in council and published in the Canada Gazette on April 22, 1911. There does not appear to be any ambiguity in these instructions. The fact that lawyers and justices can and do quibble about whether or not there is ambiguity in these instructions is irrelevant, or at least it was irrelevant to the person responding to the enumerator's questions.

There are those who would argue that was then and this is now. Suppose we let that stand for a moment. Let us see whether the matter is ambiguous in the instructions given to individuals who completed the census questionnaire on their own without the intervention of an enumerator. The year 1971 was the first year that this was done. The instructions at the opening of that questionnaire are as follows:

The same Act guarantees that information you provided about yourself in the census questionnaire will be kept secret and used only to produce statistics. It ensures that no one will know what answers you gave except for DBS employees and they are subject to legal penalties if they disclose personal census information to anyone else. No other individual and no other government department is permitted access to your census questionnaire.

There does not appear to be any ambiguity here either. A census was conducted in 1986. When questionnaires were completed by individuals in that year, the instructions were:

Only persons sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act will have access to your completed questionnaire. Information derived from this questionnaire will be treated in accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the Act. Persons who have been sworn to secrecy under the Act are subject to prosecution if they violate these provisions.

Five years later in 1991 another census was taken. On that form the instructions were “Your answers will be kept strictly confidential”.

Members will notice the number of words used to guarantee confidentiality have changed and become much shorter. Although the wording changed there does not appear to be any ambiguity as to the confidentiality of the information collected. Therefore, it seems perfectly clear to me that the information collected was to be held in confidence. Since there was no indication about a time limitation about the confidentiality, it can safely be concluded that it would continue in perpetuity.

If there is no ambiguity, there should be no debate about the proposed legislation, but there is. Someone or a group of persons want access to the information and if such persons can persuade the government to change the legislation, the provisions for confidentiality no longer exist.

It took some digging, but I found a copy of the 1911 questionnaire that was read to the enumerators for people who were completing the questionnaire. I want to refer only to one particular section that has to do with infirmities. The name of the person appears at the top, along with the age, address and so on. Then it says, “Specify when this infirmity appeared: 1. blind; 2. deaf and dumb; 3. crazy or lunatic; 4. idiotic or silly”. This is on the form. This is the information, if this bill passes in its present form, that will be released to the general public.

I want to commend the hon. member who preceded me who said that there was a need for historians to know information. Without having been assured that this information will be treated with confidentiality, do I as an individual want that information to be released without any question whatsoever? I do not think so.

I know my hon. member said that 92 years from now it would not make any difference because the member would not be around. It is true I will not be, but what about the people who succeed me? Do I want the rest of the world to know this about an ancestor I may have had?

I happen to be very proud of my ancestors. They were good people. They were industrialist people who were persecuted for the things they believed. They were persecuted because they were entrepreneurs. They knew what Stalin did.

My hon. colleague mentioned earlier that there were certain types of questions that were asked, such as ethnic origin. He said that could become a discriminatory, racist kind of comment, and it could. The use of this information could be very helpful but it might also be misused.

However, that is not my major concern with the legislation. What is my concern is that it will take away the assurance of the confidentiality that was given to these people. They were promised that their information would be treated with confidence and would be kept secret.

That brings me to the point that the legislation introduces the principle of retroactivity. We have legislation in 2005 that is supposed to apply to a law that was passed in 1910 and a census collected under that legislation. In other words, this kind of legislation means that something that was illegal, which is to divulge information, is no longer illegal. It is now legal to release information that was confidential. It was illegal to do it then, but with retroactive legislation, it suddenly becomes legal. That does violence to my sense of justice.

To accede to such action is to deny the assurance of safety and certainty of legislation, the basis on which persons plan their futures, make investments and provide for their families. There is absolutely no stability in a government that operates on the basis of caprice and variation of its legislation.

It is not that much different than a country that invites certain companies to make huge investments, or to drill for oil and gas or to build factories. The government suddenly says to the companies that they will build the factory and they will be subject to taxes and licensing requirements. In turn the companies say that this is fine, that they can live with that. They will pay their taxes and they will pay at a certain rate.

Lo and behold, the companies establish themselves, they recognize their cash investments, they recover the investment and begin to show profits. The next thing they know, the government looks at this and says that they are making too much money. The government changes the law and charges them for the money they are making in our country.

Why would anybody want to invest in a country that has that kind of attitude? I do not think that is consistent and I do not like that principle.

In the 2006 census, the persons completing the census would have a choice. I agree with that portion of the bill. In question number 53, the individual is asked, “Do you wish this information to be released 92 years from now”. The person can answer yes or no. However, there is another complication in section 53. I want to read that question. It states:

The following question is for all persons who usually live here including those less than 15 year old. If you are answering on behalf of other people, please consult each person.

My question is, how does one consult with a two-year-old, for example, about the question? Why is this an issue? Let us read question 53. This was approved and gazetted on April 16. The question is:

Does this person agree to make his/her 2006 Census information available for public release in 2098 (92 years after the census)?

Yes

No

How could a responsible person who is completing a questionnaire on behalf of a child, commit a child, who does not understand the nature of the implication of such a question, to a position many years in the future? To me that is pretty serious. Personally, I do not believe anyone should be able to commit anyone else, especially a child, to such a position.

In conclusion, therefore, I find it very difficult to support this bill in its present form. I will introduce an amendment to the bill when it appears before the committee. The amendment that I will propose has something to do with an item that was mentioned by my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Leduc. He indicated clearly that some of the information found on tombstones was legitimate and I agree with that. Some of the other information, one example of which I read into the record just a moment ago, should be deleted. The amendment will be proposed to the committee to that end.

Primarily, my objection lies with the retroactive provision in the legislation. Unless there are incontrovertible reasons why retroactivity must take place to preserve the life or some other special situation of a person or group, retroactive legislation should not be passed in the House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have nothing against helping people find affordable housing. One of the reasons there is not as much affordable housing as there could be is because there is an excessive tax burden on people who provide housing for people.

Regarding post-secondary education, we need to support it and we need to support it better than we have in the past. I also know that there would be even more private money supporting universities and other post-secondary institutions if the tax burden were not as high as it is for industry in particular.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that last phrase, “and do not push us into deficit”. I am sure the hon. member is only too well aware that it was this party and its predecessor that pushed for a balanced budget. I am thoroughly and completely committed to a balanced budget. That is where we want to go. I am so glad that the government of the day has in fact seen the light and the significance of that, and actually presented to this House and to the people of Canada a balanced budget.

Regarding tax cuts and the role of government, government should do those things that individual citizens cannot do for themselves or are unwilling to do for themselves. It is not the government's role to find how many different ways we can intrude into the lives of people and do things for them. It would be nice if that were done, but if left to their own devices they would do far better. I am a firm believer that the common sense of the common people and the individual's ability to apply money is far more successful and far more efficient than if left in the hands of politicians.

I would encourage governments to cut taxes and leave more money in the hands of the people. We will find them doing things for themselves that currently government has assumed that it has to do for them. Left with their own resources they will look after themselves extremely well and they will do far better than some of these programs that government thinks it must put in place.

There is a delicate balance that must take place here. I am a firm believer that it is the common sense of the common people and money left in their hands that will be spent much more effectively and efficiently than would ever be done by the government.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak to Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill that the government has presented to the House. However I do so with mixed feelings because we actually have before us two budgets. We have Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 which will be debated right after this particular debate collapses.

We need to recognize that certain elements in Bill C-43 are actually quite encouraging and we can support them, particularly the business of implementing the Atlantic accord. This is a very significant issue and we will be supporting it.

However there are some things that I believe the people of Canada and particularly the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country need to be aware of. This budget implementation bill is not as great as it appears to be.

I want to speak in particular to the personal tax cuts and to tax cuts a little bit more generally because there seems to be a feeling among the Liberals of “Look at how benevolent we are. Look at what we are doing. We are cutting personal income taxes”.

Yes, indeed, the Liberals are cutting them: $16 next year. Most of us know there are 12 months in a year. If we divide 16 by 12, it does not leave us very much per month, does it? I suggest that there are not even enough tax cuts in each month to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The Liberals then go on to tell everyone what they will do in the future. Yes, by the time we get to 2009, four or five years from now, it will be $192 in savings. That is a pittance. If there is to be a tax cut, let us make it a real tax cut.

The interesting thing is that in those tax cuts and counterbalancing those tax cuts, we need to look at what the budget also does. It increases the overall spending of the government. If we look at it in some detail, we discover that in 1996-97 the real federal program spending per capita was $3,466. It will have risen to $4,255 by the year 2005-06, the year we are talking about now. That is an increase of $800 per capita in volume terms, or $3,200 for a family of four. The current Liberal spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10. That is a projected increase of almost $1,200 per person.

However increases in real government spending do not necessarily equate to solving problems or getting better results. Imagine if that same money had been left in the pockets of the citizens of Kelowna, for example. If they had put $1,000 of tax savings into an RRSP, which they should all be doing, and if that had been invested at 3.5% per year, and that is a very low level but is, at the same time, very realistic, that would result in a nest egg of $29,200 in 20 years and $53,000 in 30 years. A return of 5% would result in a nest egg of $34,000 and $69,000, almost $70,000 in 30 years.

It is pretty evident that if that money had been left in the hands of individual citizens and they had invested it as they wanted to do it and at these very minimal rates of return, they would have benefited far better than a measly $16 tax cut or, in 10 years, $192. That is on an individual basis.

We need to cut the taxes of industry. I have been an advocate of cutting taxes to business for a long time. There is a reason for this. What does not seem to be clear is that business employs people and it is business that actually is the economy of a country and makes the country work. It is business that creates new ideas, that innovates new products, that commercializes the findings of research, that actually conducts research to make better products, that makes the process of manufacturing a little bit more efficient, that provides employment for all kinds of people and that focuses the application of money in such a way that it gets the greatest resources.

We have a tremendous industrial sector and a great manufacturing sector in this country. However, by increasing the taxes and making the tax burden so heavy, these people are finding themselves hamstrung to do the innovation they know they can do but cannot implement because they do not have the capital to make it possible. They do not expand their plants or invest in machinery and equipment because the tax burden is too high.

There was a time when the government even had a capital tax. It really did not matter whether a business was doing anything at all. Simply by having invested millions of dollars in equipment and machinery, they were taxed on the fact they had put that money to work.

Can anyone imagine anything less economically stimulating than a capital tax, and yet that was done? It cost many people their jobs. It is such backward thinking to do that sort of thing and yet we do no have a reasonable tax cut for businesses in this budget. I cannot help but encourage members to think about increasing the tax cuts for business.

The other point I want to make has to do with trust and the management of our country's affairs. We will soon be debating Bill C-48. I will not go into it in any great detail but I want to refer to a provision in the bill that essentially provides $4.6 billion without a plan as to how that money will be spent.

We are in the business at the moment of listening to the discoveries of Justice Gomery. He is revealing what happened over the last number of years because there was a fund designed to build stronger unity in Canada, particularly with Quebec. Two hundred and fifty million dollars were spent in the advertising program to build things up but with no plan as to how that was supposed to actually be done. The result is that the money was spent not only willy-nilly but very clearly through fraudulent activities. We now know it as ad scam.

How did that ad scam program actually work? There are essentially three points. First, advertising agencies overcharged the federal sponsorship program with fake invoices for work that was never done. Second, the agencies then gave the money to Liberal Party workers and riding associations. Third, in some cases the agencies hired Liberal Party campaign workers and paid them using taxpayer money gained from the sponsorship program. I am sure some people listening want us to provide some evidence of this because we make these broad, sweeping statements. We had witnesses and testimony has been presented. Let me read into the record some of the testimony that was actually given to the Gomery commission.

Lafleur Communications took a commission of $112,500 for simply delivering a $750,000 cheque to VIA Rail. It received $112,500 to carry a cheque from one corporation to another? Those were taxpayer dollars.

Bernard Thiboutot of Groupaction funnelled cheques totalling $57,000 to Liberal Party organizers through an employee consulting company. These too were taxpayer dollars.

This is all sworn testimony.

Luc Lemay, whose companies took in $36 million in sponsorship contracts, testified that he paid Jacques Corriveau, a close friend of Jean Chrétien, nearly $7 million in commissions over the years. He said that Corriveau did little or no work for this money. These were taxpayer dollars.

Those are three examples.

In conclusion, I want to thank the people who voted for me in the last election. It has been an honour to represent them in this House, but at the same time I feel honour bound to tell them this about the budget. We will support this implementation bill at the end of this day because it has some good things in it, but I want them all to know that there are some things in this budget that are very wrong and they will see why in the debate on Bill C-48.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but comment on that last point because the hon. member referred to our convention. The important thing is to recognize exactly what the resolution was that we passed at the convention. It states:

A Conservative government will reduce federal gasoline taxes conditional on an agreement with the provinces that they will use this tax room to fund infrastructure in provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

What could be clearer than that kind of a commitment which is that we will do this? This was our convention, our membership and the Conservative Party position. I would like to encourage the hon. member to take things as they are and not put all kinds of interpretations on them.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 19th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke and waxed rather eloquent about the contribution of the money to the cities. I think that is a very interesting comment. I want to assure him that if the Conservatives become the new Government of Canada, the commitments that have been made, for example in Vancouver, British Columbia, will indeed be honoured.

I want to address a more specific question. It has to do with the $300 million municipal green fund. In the budget itself, the indication is that there will be about $150 million or thereabouts to clean up the brownfield sites. Yet when I look at the implementation bill, which is what we are dealing with right now, I see that part 8 of that particular bill does not refer at all to the cleaning up of the brownfield sites.

Can the hon. member assure us that the money allocated, actually stated in the budget itself, will indeed come into play and into existence in the administration of the municipal green fund?