Rex Barnes

[Newfoundland and Labrador, September 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have been recently informed that HRDC has decided to stop certain funding to zonal boards in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The labour market development agreement between the provincial and the federal governments expires in early October. This program has provided rural areas of the province with the expertise to develop longstanding employment so that rural areas are financially feasible.

The prime minister in waiting is promising new deals for cities. One has to wonder who will pay this price. People in rural areas know now who will be paying the price.

Eliminating funding from these zonal boards by changing the regulations for the labour market development program, the Liberal government is hurting the development of rural areas in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Amendments and Corrections Act, 2003, September 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-41, an act to amend certain acts. Let me state from the outset that this piece of legislation is not as straightforward as some would have us believe. The bill is very technical and one that requires tough scrutiny and examination prior to its passage.

The bill proposes a series of minor technical amendments to various federal acts, including the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act.

Bill C-41 is not in itself a so-called statute law amendment act. To be such it would have to meet certain criteria established by the justice department's legislative section. For example, the proposed amendment should not be controversial or require the expenditure of public funds, which is not the case with Bill C-41. Rather, this is an omnibus bill that will update and maintain certain laws. The last parliamentary initiative of this sort dates back to June 2002 when Parliament passed Bill C-43.

According to the government, Bill C-41 permits minor corrections which do not warrant separate bills to be made to a number of existing federal laws. In some cases the amendments aim to make the English and French versions of an act more consistent with one another. In others they clarify the definition of certain terms to make an act's provisions easier to interpret.

The technical amendments are to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, the Customs Act, the Financial Administration Act, and the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.

Despite what the Liberals say, Bill C-41 also contains major amendments to two other federal acts. The bill amends the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act so that they may continue to pay into their pension plan up to a maximum of five years should they become disabled and have to leave office before completing the five years of service required to be entitled to a pension plan.

Moreover, Bill C-41 establishes a formula for the segment of a pension if, following the death of the lieutenant governor, there are two surviving spouses. Corresponding amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act will complement the government's proposed amendments in this area.

Bill C-41 also amends the Salaries Act to establish a disability allowance for lieutenant governors who become disabled after 65 years of age. This will provide them with the same coverage that they had before turning 65. According to the government, this amendment is based on provisions applicable to parliamentarians over the age of 65.

These amendments seem to be part of the ongoing review of the benefits and obligations scheme for lieutenant governors. Last year Bill C-43 also amended the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act to lower from 65 to 60 the age at which provincial representatives of the Queen became eligible for a deferred pension. It is interesting to note that instead of using a single bill to do so, the government has decided to modernize this plan under the guise of technical amendments.

Bill C-41 makes two amendments to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act. First, the person responsible for managing the round table, who in passing is appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure, will now hold the title of president instead of executive director. Second, this person from now on will hold office for a term not exceeding five years, rather than the three years currently provided under subsection 10(1) of the act.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the bill in principle at this time; however, we feel that Bill C-41 requires further study and examination, which requires our full attention.

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are many widows who will be impacted because of the date. Would the hon. member tell us from her experience and from the people who call her, what does she foresee happening to the spouses of veterans who will not be covered under this program?

[Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House with regard to veterans' concerns.

Of course it seems like, for some reason or another, that veterans have to continually fight for benefits that government should be automatically giving them. Unfortunately they have to continue to fight. It seems as though the war is still on for a lot of these gentlemen plus veterans' spouses who are looking for benefits due to them.

Since the return of the House last week, the issue of veterans' benefits has been focused on a single great injustice. That injustice stems from a decision by the government to exclude more than 28,000 widows from the continued protection of the veterans independence program. By not making this program extension retroactive, the government has effectively left thousands of citizens out in the cold.

These brave women were not only the wives of heroes; they were the backbone of the war effort here at home. Many committed themselves to whatever service they could provide for the country. Many spent some of the most difficult years of their lives caring for their ailing husbands suffering from injuries received on the field of battle. To deny these courageous Canadians the benefits they deserve is to condemn them to a life sentence in a hospital or a long term care facility.

The cruellest part of this entire scandal is that the basis for deciding who would get these benefits and who would not is the date that their veteran husbands died. It is not based on need. It is not based on compassion. It is not based on the fundamental principles of basic fairness. It is based on a civil servant looking at a calendar and saying, “This day and not one day before”.

We all know that losing their husbands was a very tragic event in their lives, but now it is one that these women will have to remember each and every day as they struggle through their daily chores. This decision, unfair and totally arbitrary, will force these women from their homes. Yet down the street there might be another widow who, due to the fact that her husband lived just a little longer, will get everything she needs.

How is this fair? Is this fair? I know it is not and I am sure the minister realizes it is not, because I know that the minister has a good heart and he has great intentions. But we need to go further for these veterans and their spouses.

How does it honour the memory of our veterans? In fact, I think it puts down and destroys the memory of our veterans because it says that some of their families should be protected while others should not.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs has repeatedly told the House that if he had the money to cover all widows, he would. And I know he would, because he is a kind gentleman. However, it is not happening and I think it is very important that the government move forward to make sure that all widows are protected and covered, not just those in the present day. He says the real problem is that the government is unwilling to give money to veterans, even while it spends $1 billion on the gun registry and on scandal after scandal. He says that this is about the Minister of Finance needing more money to cover mistakes than he has to help Canadians. Even if Veterans Affairs heart is in the right place, it is clear its wallet is not.

An access to information request for the spending of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has uncovered gross mismanagement on the part of the board members. Statistics Canada says the average Canadian household spends about $124 per week on food, yet a veterans appeal board member, a former Liberal MP, charged the government $180 a week. Statistics Canada says the average household spends about $6,000 a year on food. The same member charged the government for just under $8,000.

But he is not the worst. Another board member charged the government $13,000. There is more. The average Canadian spends about $5,000 per person per household for shelter in a year. Instead, the board members charged the government $12,000 for accommodations in the last 11 months alone. That is more than the cost of a two bedroom apartment here in Ottawa for the same time period. And there is more: All these expenses charged to taxpayers are on top of an annual salary of $100,000.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many widows earn more than $100,000 a year? I know that the minister knows they do not make that much money; they are just barely surviving. I think we have to do more. I know he can find the money; he has the heart to do it. What I realize is that he will have to find the money. And I will tell the members on the board that the hon. member for Saint John, New Brunswick is very concerned about all the widows in this country.

How many widows have the luxury of charging their food and shelter to the government? This kind of double standard is disgusting. Veterans' widows have had to sell their homes while Veterans Appeal Board members live like kings. Where is the justice?

I put the government on notice today. The member for Saint John has made it quite clear that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will do everything in its power to prevent the government from enacting this cruel scam.

For a decade the Liberal government has forced veterans to fight for every benefit they deserve. Every time we turn on the news there is always something about veterans appealing and going to court trying to get more money that is due to them. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Look at the agony and torment that these veterans are going through.

We should respect the veterans. We know how the aboriginal groups have been affected over the years. They have had to fight and fight and fight until justice was served.

Veterans have done their time. Veterans have fought the war. Let us give them what they duly deserve.

It began with the merchant navy veterans. We all know who was the main fighter behind the merchant navy veterans. He is in the other House and he has done a great job. It has continued with veterans whose money has been held in trust by the government. It still continues with veterans who were used during the war to test chemical weapons like mustard gas.

Yet these brave veterans are being forced to fight the government. They fought to defend us two generations ago. They are being forced to challenge the full power of government in the courts.

This is not how we treat heroes. This is not how we remember their sacrifices. This is not how we honour their memories. The government has declared war on the grandparents of the nation.

The veterans affairs committee recently undertook a study of veterans care hospitals across the country. These hospitals should be monuments for heroes, but far too many are museums of forgotten friends. Brave soldiers in the evening of their lives are being subjected to bad food and ramshackle conditions and they are the lucky ones. Countless others struggle through their days at home as their names slowly work their way down the waiting list.

How many times do we get phone calls? I am sure many members get calls from their constituents for veterans who are waiting, trying to get help and trying to get their name on the list.

It is like that for housing for seniors. It is the same thing. Their name is put on a list. There may be 200, 300 or 400 on the list. We need to make sure that the need is taken care of now. Countless others struggle through their days at home while their names slowly work their way down the waiting list.

These men offered their lives in the defence of our freedom. Young boys too young to serve had to lie to recruiting officers so that they could go to fight for our country. Now they are old men. The government now is lying to them. It is not giving them what is rightly due to them.

The government said it would remember them. It did not. The government said it would take care of them. It did not. The government said it would take care of their families after they were gone and it will not.

Given the years of sacrifice and hardships that many of these veterans and their families have endured, the government owes them the duty of care. The duty requires us to protect them as they have protected us. That duty requires us to care for them as they would have cared for their loved ones had their lives not been shortened by the effects of the war. They made the ultimate sacrifice for us and it is time for us to make that ultimate sacrifice for them.

I know that the minister will do everything in his power to make sure that we do what is right and that is to take care of all veterans' spouses. If they are not in a program now, they have to become part of the program. We need to do what is right for them and for the country.

[Cancer, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a very serious medical condition in our country, that is the alarming number of cancer cases. An estimated 140,000 new cases of cancer and 67,000 deaths from cancer will occur in Canada in 2003. Right now there are more than 710,000 Canadians living with cancer.

In my riding of Gander--Grand Falls, Mr. Gerald Higgins has been on a one man crusade since his wife was diagnosed with cancer in May 2000. Mr. Higgins' crusade is about transformers and cancer. What is the connection? For example, in one community, 49 of 51 people were diagnosed with cancer; in another, 16 of 21 people were diagnosed with cancer; and in another, 21 of 23 people were diagnosed with cancer. In one community 35 residents have died from cancer.

What is the connection with transformers? All have transformers in close proximity to their homes. Is there a relationship--

[Income Tax Act, September 24th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have not done an analysis of the whole bill, but for all intents and purposes we will be supporting the bill because we feel this is the right way to go. We firmly believe all people should be treated fairly under the tax system. If anybody can have more money in their pockets and there can be more money in the corporations' pockets, then we all hope that they will do the right thing and create jobs and grow the economy, regardless of what sector they are in. That is what our hope should be.

We cannot tell the corporations that this is what they are going to have to do, but if a corporation anywhere in Canada is looking to prosper, we firmly believe that with more money in their pockets they will create more jobs. The workers will be content and the corporations will be content. With people working there is more money being spent and the government gets the taxes anyway. Therefore, it basically helps to run the country.

[Income Tax Act, September 24th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, before I get into the topic of debate, I want to say that when we talk about taxes and tax fairness most Canadians understand it in a very simplified way. They know they are paying too much in taxes, regardless of where they live, whether they are a business person or an individual citizen. As a result, they only know that governments take more money out of their pockets for taxes than what they have been able to spend.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to talk about the issue of tax fairness with respect to the natural resource industry.

Today we heard how in the budget of 2000 the government announced a cut in the rates of general corporate income tax for all industries, except the resource industry, from 28% to 23%, and soon to be 21%. Cutting the tax rates now is an undertaking that I support. Canada needs lower tax rates for our industries to remain competitive.

It is important for the House to recognize that we do not live in a vacuum. Canada is a member of the international community and, in a world of increased international trade and globalization, it is important for us to position ourselves in a way where our people and our organizations can grow and bring greater prosperity to Canada.

We cannot afford to place our people and our organizations at a disadvantage by clinging on to tax rates that remain among the highest in the OECD, which is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

We cannot afford to drive away investment and savings, which is exactly what high tax rates do. They drive away investment and savings. They punish success and encourage our entrepreneurs to move to places where tax rates are lower.

I support the cut in general corporate income tax rates from 28% to 21% but I also support the tax cut for all industries, not just selective ones. I simply do not agree that the resource industry should have been left out of the initial tax cut in the budget of 2000.

The resource industry has to compete for the same investment dollars as other industries. We know investors are looking for the highest rate of return on their dollar. It seems to me rather unfair to discriminate against the resource sector by taxing that sector higher than we were before. It is unfair to the resource based corporations and their investors. It is unfair to deny them the same opportunity to grow and expand by subjecting them to higher taxes than other corporations and investors would face. However, more important, it is unfair to workers in the resource industry, workers who indirectly rely on that investment for the industry to grow, to create jobs and to grow with the economy.

Therefore I am glad to see that Bill C-48 would address this unfairness by extending the cut in the rates of general corporate income tax to the resource industry.

Still there is more that the government can do. Canada needs a major overhaul of its tax system. Cutting corporate income tax rates is a start but to create a more competitive climate for economic growth we should also eliminate the capital gains tax.

Alan Greenspan, chairman of the U.S. federal reserve, said:

--if the capital gains tax were eliminated, that we would presumably, over time, see increased economic growth which would raise revenues for the personal and corporate taxes...its major impact is to impede entrepreneurial activity and capital formation.

The Ottawa Citizen had this to say:

The capital gains tax doesn't raise much money, isn't fair to people who've worked hard, and does more harm than good. [The right hon. member for Calgary Centre] is right. It should be scrapped.

Another way to help the economy is to reduce job killing payroll taxes such as EI premiums. With a surplus of around $45 billion, it is clear that the federal government has ignored the original purpose of the EI fund. It was set up to be an employment insurance program, but instead of simply providing Canadians with insurance coverage, it is contributing to the general government coffers by taking a large chunk out of the paycheques of ordinary Canadians.

These tax moneys would be better spent by the Canadian people and organizations. Canadians know better than the government how to determine their spending priorities and Canadian businesses have a better track record than the government does of choosing between winning and losing ventures.

Speaking of losing ventures, if the federal government could somehow learn to stay away from the spending scandals in HRDC and the public works department, considerable amounts of money could be freed up and redirected toward overhauling our tax system.

I understand that the goal of the legislation before us is to simplify and streamline the tax system for the natural resources industry. I think we all can agree that reducing the regulatory burden for industry in Canada would be good for the economy. I agree with the principle of bringing taxes in the natural resources sector in line with other sectors, so I look forward to bringing this legislation before committee.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. When our critic gets back to the House he will be speaking in more detail on what he feels is the right direction for Canada with regard to tax cuts.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about all the money the government has put into the crisis. It is like the fishing industry. All kinds of money went into the crisis but it seemed that the people on the ground who needed it the most did not get it.

The minister talked about a little over half a billion dollars. Basically it looks like it right now in the compensation package with the combination of the provinces putting in some money. Who actually got the money? If the money is out there, it seems that the farmers are saying that they do not have it. Who actually got the money? I would like the minister to outline where the money has gone.

[Employment Insurance, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, rural Canada is very different from the way it was a decade ago. Jobs are fewer, unemployment is greater and there is a greater need for leadership from the Canadian government.

Since 1991, many millions of dollars a year less in employment insurance benefits are being paid out to people in my riding of Gander--Grand Falls. Many organizations, including the Canadian Labour Congress, state that changes in the EI act are needed to better reflect the changing economies in rural areas.

The Government of Canada now has a surplus of $45 billion in the EI fund. It is more difficult to receive EI benefits, the period of time to receive EI benefits is much shorter, it is more difficult for young people to obtain sponsorship for training, and it is more difficult for older workers to obtain meaningful work.

I agree with the president of the CLC, who states, “Times are changing. Work is changing. Canada's unemployment insurance needs to change too”. I say, stop abusing the EI fund and stop overcharging Canadian workers.

[Petitions, June 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by over 15,000 individuals.

The people in Newfoundland and Labrador are very concerned about the relocation of the weather forecasting service from the Gander weather centre to Halifax and Montreal. The petitioners firmly believe this will jeopardize lives and property in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador because of the severe and erratic weather patterns on Canada's east coast.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to reverse the decision the government has made to relocate the weather forecasting services provided by the Newfoundland weather centre in Gander.