David Anderson

[Council For Canadian Unity, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House a number of times how the charitable status for organizations is given out. It is given out on the basis of court decisions. There is no legislation. It is not decision of the minister but a series of court decisions which has determined that various areas of activity

considered to be in the public interest should be permitted charitable status to encourage that. It has resulted in substantial improvements in Canadian living standards, in health and in all sorts of other areas.

I am afraid, however, with respect to the specifics of the hon. member's question I do not have in my hand the number he gave out. If he would like to give it to me I could check out that number.

[Revenue Canada, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada did not change any rules. The rules have been in place for a long time and have remained unchanged. The real question is: How did it come about that the Canadian government put in place a system allowing promoters to do such things?

Since the decision was made in 1989, the question would be better put to the Leader of the Official Opposition, who was a government member at the time.

[Revenue Canada, June 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is true that hundreds of companies were established by promoters interested in investing in scientific research. It is also true that, in many cases, the fact that no research was carried out caused problems in a number of regions in Quebec and in other provinces as well.

At present, there is litigation between investors and promoters. This is a very complicated situation, and I can assure the hon. member that a decision will be made by the end of the session, if at all possible, and hopefully before the end of June in any case.

[Babbar Khalsa, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the denial of charitable status is something which I have suggested can be appealed in the courts. It is something we do on the basis of proper investigation and information.

We are quite willing to accept the views of the hon. member that a picture of a member with guns surrounding him is evidence, but I suggest it is totally contradictory to the Reform Party's gun policy that the mere presence of a photograph with weapons causes one to be investigated and causes one to lose charitable status.

[Babbar Khalsa, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending over a copy of the document, which was on my desk when I arrived in the House. Unfortunately I do not speak Punjabi and it has been a little difficult for me to understand the true import of her question, but I thank her for the effort.

It is the policy of the Government of Canada not to support terrorist organizations of any type, whether on the Indian subcontinent, in the former Yugoslavia, in Ireland or wherever. We provide no support with respect to charitable status.

Where we have reason to believe a charitable organisation is not living up to its charitable status, which requires it to be promoting religion, education or certain social services, we launch an investigation. Any organization could be looked at, depending on the information we receive. Twenty organizations are now appealing their denials of charitable status in the federal court. We follow it up closely.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, May 31st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-76, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5, on page 14, with the following:

"subsequent crop year shall be determined by".

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-76, in Clause 21, be amended: a ) by replacing line 6, on page 16, with the following:

"181.18 (1) During 1999, the Minister shall, in"; and b ) by replacing lines 13 to 15, on page 16, with the following:

"and on the sharing of efficiency gains as between shippers and railway companies.

(2) The Minister shall, as part of this review, determine (a) whether the repeal of this Division and Schedules I, II and III will have a significant adverse impact on shippers; and ( b ) whether this Division and Schedules I, II and III should be repealed.

181.19 If the Minister determines, pursuant to paragraph 181.18 (2) ( b ), that this Division and Schedules I, II and III should be repealed, then this Division and those Schedules shall be repealed on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.''

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, May 31st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-76, in Clause 7, be amended in the French version, by replacing lines 8 and 9, on page 7, with the following:

«ou à toute personne appartenant à l'administration publicque fédérale.»

[Customs, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of measures being taken. I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern in this area, which he has expressed on a number of occasions most forcibly.

We are in fact proposing that we make a change to the $300 exemption paperwork at the border so it can be done without filling out a form. This initiative is a proposal at the present time. Consultations are ongoing but if the consultations are successful we expect to bring it in by August 1 of this year.

It is an initiative that is consistent with the U.S.-Canada border accord that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States signed last February. It will streamline clearance procedures, save approximately 16 person years of time for Revenue Canada and will be one of a series of measures to make our border more user friendly and less of a hassle for the honest border crosser.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 29th, 1995]

A BW sufferance warehouse is a primary public facility licensed by Revenue Canada for the receipt of in bond freight

imported by highway. These facilities are serviced by Revenue Canada and are licensed when a demonstrated need exists for either a new or additional highway sufferance warehouse in a customs area.

A CW sufferance warehouse is a secondary facility for the private use of an operator for the deconsolidation of in bond freight arriving by any mode of transportation. In the case of highway freight, goods must first be reported to the primary BW highway warehouse before being transferred to a CW warehouse for customs clearance. These facilities are operated by freight forwarders, consolidators and deconsolidators for freight carried in their system.

In reference to part (a) of the question, an increasing number of companies have been applying for CW sufferance warehouse licences in the Toronto area. Faced with limited resources, local Revenue Canada officials introduced a system to allow freight forwarders to backhaul goods requiring customs examination to the BW sufferance warehouse rather than having Revenue Canada provide the service to the CW facility. This arrangement has permitted the department to license additional CW warehouses since no on site customs service is required for examination purposes.

In reference to part (b) of the question, the policy on the licensing of BW highway sufferance warehouses is one per customs area, with exceptions made for high volume locations. Current departmental policy provides for the licensing of an additional type BW facility if the volume of commercial highway traffic handled at a particular customs office exceeds 40,000 shipments per year over a sustained period of time and the potential operator demonstrates the ability to attract a minimum of 20,000 shipments per year.

There is no volume of business criteria for CW facilities, however the department must be able to service them within existing resource levels.

[Infrastructure, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions it has been explained to the Reform Party that Calgary and Edmonton are using infrastructure money for hockey arenas. It is strange to me that in Winnipeg they want different rules. They want things to be done differently from the two Alberta cities that are receiving money in this regard.

With respect to the position in law, I cannot guarantee that I will refuse any application that comes before me. They are judged on the merits in accordance with the law. The hon. member may not like that, his party may not like the application of the law, but on this side of the House we obey the law in these situations.