Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on the way the bill is being administered. Everyone in the House basically agrees that it should go ahead and that the bill has merit. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, even though it has some concerns, is in favour of seeing the bill go ahead, but the government has not invoked time allocation as it has done close to 60 times when anyone wanted to talk about something that it did not agree with.
I commend my colleague, the critic for this department, on his work on Bill C-10. The bill is highly technical. I congratulate him on his analysis and on the amendments he has proposed which have been designed primarily to increase ministerial accountability. Given what has gone on in the House in the last week, ministerial accountability is a virtue sadly lacking in some departments, in particular HRDC.
Grants seem to be a feature of life where the government is concerned. When granting procedures are as unstructured as they seem to be in HRDC—and they are certainly not mentioned in law—and a program is put together to please someone, there is political pressure, allegations of corruption, favouritism and those kinds of things. I feel the bill goes a long way toward addressing some of those concerns.
We would not want the industry minister, for instance, to make decisions without guidelines when he is handing over taxpayer money. He had in his mind that he would turn over about $20 million of Canadian taxpayer funds. However, people felt their wallets getting a little lighter. They felt the industry minister rifling through their wallets and they were an uproar. Without a structured plan in place these kinds of abuses can take place.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is to be commended for putting the pressure on the minister to come forward with guidelines.
The two certainties in life are death and taxes. In Saskatchewan we are seeing the death of many communities because of the state of our economy. The amount taxpayers have to pay is often not known because of uncertainties in income going to municipalities. This bill will address those uncertainties.
Municipal governments have been at the mercy of federal governments when making decisions on what buildings they will be given grants in lieu of taxes and on the amount of the grant. This will help a lot.
The bill attempts to address a problem that is in our constitution, which exempts the federal government and crown corporations from paying municipal taxes on their properties. It took from the date the constitution was written until 1950 to get something in law to establish a program of grants in lieu of taxes. Up until then everything was left up to ministerial accountability. As I said previously, that has created no end of difficulties for municipalities because they do things much the same way as HRDC does and the way the industry minister has attempted to do things. People need certainty in their lives beyond death and taxes. They need to know when the money is coming to them.
The Reform Party has proposed a number of amendments. Motion No. 4 reminds us that the bill currently reads that the minister may make payments. One of the things we do not agree with in the legislation is the minister having the ability to make the decision without being held accountable somewhere and in some way.
In order to hold the minister accountable for any changes in the payment or for the lack of payment, this motion would require the minister to sit down and write to the taxing authority, which would be the local government, the reasons for the changes or the withholding. Local governments need to be given a certain level of respect by this place. Currently, that does not often happen. We can see that in the way payments in lieu of taxes are handled.
Motion No. 5 reads that it is up to the opinion of the minister to decide whether or not a payment has been unreasonably delayed. We want to lessen the minister's discretion in that area so it is not based just on his opinion. The requirement in Motion No. 5 is that the minister provide written reasons to the taxing authority if he decides not to make a supplementary payment. This provision would hold a minister of the crown accountable for decisions that he or his department has made. He would not be able to just simply say “Well, it is my opinion. You have to live with it. That is as good as it is going to get”. It can get a lot better if the minister has to sit down and explain his reasons.
Throughout the bill we see “in the opinion” or “may” or something like that. My colleague's amendments are based on holding a minister to a standard that requires him to make a rational decision and to put it in writing so that the taxing authority can make the decision known to the people they represent. They are after all going to the same well as the federal government. When they have to increase taxes, the people should know why.
Motion No. 8 deals with discretion as to the method of payment. This would again require the minister to provide written reasons to the taxing authority. It also provides for ministerial accountability. Why was the method of payment chosen by the minister? Can it be made in annual instalments? Yes, it can. Can it be made with interest if it is on an annual instalment? Yes, it can. Can it be made in a lump sum payment without interest? Again, the answer is yes. Does the minister have to say why he chose to do it that way? No, the minister does not. This amendment should make it possible for the local authority to find out why the minister made the decision that he made.
There are three government agencies, the Royal Canadian Mint, Canada Post and CMHC, that hold property in local communities. We would like to see these agencies make payments in lieu of taxes as well. In order to do that at the present time, it would require an order in council, which would give the minister far too much discretion because of the way these types of things are done.
Motion No. 16 provides for crown corporation accountability with regard to non-payment in lieu of taxes. Like the minister, crown corporations may make payments in lieu of taxes. And again, without constitutional amendment, the bill cannot read that they must make payments. However, there are ways to get around that. In order to provide for some level of accountability, crown corporations should be required to provide, in writing to the taxing authority, their reasons for non-payment.
We have a number of concerns over inconsistencies that the government is able to introduce into its method of making payments to taxes. In one instance it can get out from under a requirement one way or it can basically lead a municipality around without letting it know why it is doing what it is doing.
The last motion deals with how the advisory panel provides advice to the ministry. The minister may accept or reject the advisory committee's advice, and that is acceptable. After all, that is what advisory committees do, is advise based on the best information they can get. However, the minister does not have to provide a rationale for why she or he accepts that information.