Roy Cullen

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for reminding me.

In last year's budget we had some investments in Kyoto. I would like us to build on that experience. We need some more beyond the measures in last year's budget. We need some more investments in economic instruments and incentives for industry to adapt and change, some market signals.

I know there has been this concept that has been floating out there about a fund that would buy up credits. Those areas where we have greenhouse gas reductions would get a refund from this fund. That allows the market to some extent to focus on what are going to be the major efficiencies that we can accomplish. I would like to see some emphasis on alternative fuels and renewable energy. We have various instruments in our tax policy, in the budget before us today and in future budgets, that will deal with that.

I would like to see the budget deal with municipal solid waste. We often forget that the landfills that we see all across this country produce methane. Methane rises into the atmosphere. In some cases we collect it underneath, but in most cases the methane just rises into the atmosphere.

Methane is about 20 times more harmful with respect to greenhouse gases than CO

2

. We still allow this methane to drift into the atmosphere. I know that there are technologies available to convert methane. I have worked with the city of Toronto and our ministers here to see if we can encourage the kinds of technologies that will convert this municipal solid waste into methane and turn it into electricity, and into products that could be used for example by the farming industry.

We need to invest further, beyond the measures in this budget, in public transit. In a city such as Toronto we see the air quality diminishing. I would like to see measures that will encourage energy efficiency and encourage investments in alternative energy, such as wind power, solar, the use of hydrogen, et cetera.

Having said that, we must remember that we still have some work to do on taxes. In last year's budget, the budget before us today and in future budgets, because of various commitments that our government has rightly made, I am not sure that there will be a lot of flexibility for the finance minister to look very aggressively at tax cuts.

In the forthcoming budget I would like to see a discussion around where we are going with taxes, particularly personal income taxes which are still somewhat high in Canada. We still need to be mindful of work that we have to do on taxes.

However, we learned in Ontario under the Harris and Eves governments that tax cuts are not the panacea. In Ontario, the government went well beyond what was required, necessary or prudent. We saw a gutting of programs. Canadians and Ontarians said the government had gone too far.

We must be careful about how we go with tax cuts because we erode the revenue base of the government and then we cannot deliver on some of our national priorities, some of the federal government's programs that most Canadians like and need. We must look at that.

We need to invest in our national security. I will declare a conflict of interest in the sense that I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We need to deal with law enforcement. We need to deal aggressively with organized crime. We need to invest, as was discussed by the member from Windsor, in our borders. We need to increase our defence spending.

I suggest that this will be a difficult budget. I am confident that our Minister of Finance will come out with a budget that will reflect the priorities of Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we know that developing and implementing a budget is a continuous process. As I said, we need to build on our strong fiscal performance. In 2003-04 we will record our seventh straight surplus. I am sure we will have another surplus again in 2004-05.

While the other parties opposite might argue that this is a bad news story because we have not predicted them precisely every year, I look at it as a very positive story. When we have surpluses we are able to pay down the debt. We cannot forget about the fact that we still have a federal debt exceeding $400 billion. Under the mandate of this government, we have paid down about $60 billion against the debt, but we still have more work to do. Because of that paydown in the debt, Canadian taxpayers are saving over $3 billion a year in money that would be otherwise used to service that debt. That is a $3 billion annual annuity that the federal government can put toward other priorities of Canadians.

While other members are concerned about the inability, in their judgment, in the government's ability to forecast these surpluses, the Minister of Finance has pointed out quite astutely that with a 1% deviation on the expenditure side coupled with a 1% deviation on the revenue side, suddenly the surplus is out by $3 billion or $4 billion. In the world we live in today, of increasing uncertainty and volatility, it is easy to understand how surpluses cannot be precisely forecast each year.

However, notwithstanding that, it is still a good news story. It has to be a good news story that we are coming up with surpluses, not deficits. Where are we that we have to attack the fact that we are having surpluses and that we are paying down our national debt?

Our economy has grown consistently at levels around 3%. In fact, we have performed very well. We have a very low interest rate environment that is good for businesses and Canadians. People in rental properties are getting out and buying houses or duplexes. They can take on a mortgage because it is affordable.

We have had the largest tax cut in Canadian history in the year 2000. When we had this debate the other day, the members opposite said that it was not really a $100 billion tax cut. It was. The reason they argue that is they are absolutely incredulous. They did not think a Liberal government would address taxes, but we did. Have we more work to do? Of course we do. Will we do more? Yes, I am sure we will. The fact is it was a $100 billion tax cut, the largest tax cut in Canadian history.

The members opposite argued that we put the indexing back into the tax system, which had been taken out to deal with the budgetary deficit. We re-indexed the tax system. In other words, a Canadian typically would have been paying more tax had we not done that. This is a tax measure that results in lower taxes for Canadians.

The parties opposite also, especially the Conservative Party, argued that the measure we took with respect to the Canada child tax benefit was not a tax cut. It was not a tax cut for wealthy Canadians. It was not a tax cut for big business. For the average family, a poor and middle income family with children, this has been a huge benefit. That is a tax cut because many of these people, while they would have only been paying modest taxes, were paying taxes. These were tax cuts. This is the largest tax cut in Canadian history.

I believe we need to do more in terms of the disposable incomes of Canadians. The members opposite argue that because Canada pension plan premiums have gone up that it is a tax increase. That is a fallacious argument, and they know it.

When a person invests in a pension, it has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with a contributory pension plan system where the employee puts in money and the government puts in money, and that helps to secure the retirement plan of all Canadians.

The fact that Canada pension plan premiums went up has nothing to do with taxes. I would agree that it has something to do with the take-home pay of Canadians. The disposable income of Canadians is an issue we have to be mindful of all the time because we do want money in the hands of Canadians. It is good for the economy. It is good for economic growth.

We need to be mindful of the productivity gap between ourselves and the U.S. We need to ensure we are investing in innovation. We need to ensure that we are mindful of and focused on productivity issues vis-à-vis our major trading partner, the United States.

However, having said all that, the performance of our economy is the envy of the world. People look at our economy and say that Canada is a fiscal miracle.

Just today, for example, the numbers came out on unemployment. Of course we do not like to see any unemployment. Any unemployment is bad. However, it is down to 7%, which is the lowest it has been in four years.

We have to stay the course. We have to stay out of deficit, clearly. We have to keep churning out surpluses. We need to keep paying down the debt. We need to be investing in innovation. We need to contain expenditure.

The parties opposite talk about how expenditures have grown out of line, in terms of the size of our economy. I would agree that we need to be mindful of the levels of expenditure, but the reality is that some 80% of the additional resources that the federal government has been spending have been going to the priorities of Canadians, investing in such things as health care, education, social programs and an innovative economy. We do need to ensure that our expenditures stay in line with the growth in our economy. I would agree with the finance committee's recent report. It made that sort of recommendation as well.

One of the things that our government is very proud of is that we have delivered our commitments. As a government we have made a number of commitments over the last while. The budget will have to incorporate those commitments into our fiscal plan.

The one that is very important in the minds of all Canadians is health care. With the health care accord in 2003 and the additional moneys that were put into the health care system, it comes to an investment by this government of about $37 billion.

We all know that money is not the only solution for a health care system. It is one of those areas where we could keep pouring money. Notwithstanding the importance of having a sound health care system, we must have it managed better. We need to have it managed as a whole system.

When I travel around, I see so many examples where we are not managing our health care system as a holistic type of system. There are elderly people sitting in acute care beds because there is no place for them to go. They do not need the special care and attention of an acute care hospital, which by the way costs us as taxpayers maybe $1,000 a day because of all the services, equipment and highly qualified staff. We cannot put these people in lower cost institutions because the capacity is not there.

This is something the provinces and territories have wrestled with for years, but we still do not have it right. We will never have it perfectly right. We know that. However, we need to do a better job of ensuring that we have people in our health care system at the right level because it is better, in terms of patient care

If we have elderly persons sitting in intensive care in a hospital and they do not need that level of care, they would rather be in an outpatient program, or they would rather be at home. It is better for patient care and certainly better in terms of health care economics. It is better for the taxpayers of Canada.

While we need more money for the health care system, our government has consistently poured money into health care, as I said, $37 billion most recently. We need to and have agreed with the provinces and territories that there is going to be greater accountability, greater transparency, more reporting on benchmarking in terms of performance and standards. As a result Canadians in Saskatchewan can look at their province and compare it with what is going on in Yukon or in New Brunswick and can ask whether they are getting good value from their tax dollars.

We have made some major commitments with respect to cities and communities. We started last year by exempting municipalities from the GST. What does that mean? I will tell the House what it means in a city that I represent, the city of Toronto. By exempting the city of Toronto from the GST, which happened last year, it saves the city of Toronto $50 million a year. Some will say that is peanuts. I am sorry, but $50 million a year where I come from is a lot of money.

That is just the start because our Prime Minister and government have committed to give a portion of the excise tax directly to municipalities. I am happy to see that because in my province of Ontario we have seen, not so much under the regime in place now in Queen's Park but under the Harris and Eves government, a lot of programs devolve to the municipalities.

We saw that municipalities were going to have all these new responsibilities and new programs, but they forgot to transfer the resources. What we are going to do is transfer those resources directly to municipalities through a portion of the gas tax. This is being negotiated as we speak.

I would like to see that negotiation reflect the fact that large cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and many others have unique challenges. They have unique challenges with respect to public transit, air quality, and a whole host of issues with respect to social programs, such as the homeless.

We need to deal with rural communities as well, but they have different problems. When we say one size fits all, we may be politically correct but we are missing the boat. We need to understand and target our programs to the unique needs that are there.

I am a big fan of dedicating this tax and sending it directly to cities because in the city where I live we have some challenges. We have some problems. I have seen air quality diminish over the last 10 years. We see a lot of homeless people. We see urban sprawl.

I was very glad to see the Ontario government finally taking some action with respect to urban sprawl in Toronto because there are communities expanding and growing, which does not lend itself very much to public transit. We need to get higher population densities within the city centre and that will create more opportunities for public transit. That will make our air better and life easier in cities like Toronto.

We have made some commitments to the learning and child care programs. I know the minister is working on that with the provinces and territories. I know that a lot of women in my riding have come to see me to say they need child care in the province of Ontario. We could not get any child care programs going because the Harris and Eves government said it was not participating. Now we are saying to heck with that, we are just going to do it. With the government in Queen's Park now we think we are going to have a more cooperative and sharing environment to do that.

We have recently concluded some new arrangements with respect to equalization dealing with the offshore oil and gas revenues of provinces like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. That has to be built into the budget.

I would like to see something in the budget with respect to Kyoto. We signed the Kyoto accord. I know there was a lot of debate by members on both sides of the House. Some argued that greenhouse gases and climate change are not a problem. I do not believe that. I think that climate change and greenhouse gases are a problem and that we have to invest.

The difficulty I had when we signed the Kyoto accord was how we were going to meet this objective. I do not like to sign anything or commit to anything unless I can deliver it. We have some challenges on this very front. I would like to see in this upcoming budget some economic instruments that will encourage--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate about the 2005 budget which the minister has announced will come up on February 23. This is a good opportunity for all members of Parliament to comment on what they would like to see in the budget.

The first thing I would like to comment on is the need for us to maintain our strong fiscal performance. One of the things our government has done is had a very sound economic and fiscal--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Windsor West works very diligently and passionately with respect to border issues. His riding is situated close to the most important border crossing in Canada in terms of our commercial trade between Windsor and Detroit.

He throws out the figure of $18 billion in lost revenues, a figure which I think comes from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. Frankly, it is good that the number is out there. It certainly helps us focus our minds on the importance of the border. I have also debated the figure with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and it depends so much on scenarios, models and formulas or what is built into that model.

I think the member also understands that the Deputy Prime Minister met recently in Detroit and Windsor with U.S. homeland security secretary Tom Ridge at which time the U.S. government and ourselves committed to increasing the flow of traffic and decreasing the transit times by 25% next year, and we will do that. Bridge lanes will be added on the Canadian and U.S. sides. We have committed to putting in 30 more customs officers at the border to staff the new lanes. The U.S. has made the same commitment on its side.

We know we have work to do. We know there are challenges. We know we have to keep the border secure but open for the huge amounts of trade between Canada and the United States.

Has the member really studied the figure of $18 billion earnestly and challenged that number? It is in the public and it deserves some scrutiny.

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the Canadian firearms program is contributing to public safety.

As hon. members know, licensing and firearm registration data is kept in the Canadian firearms information system, also know as CFIS. We know that law enforcement agencies need accurate and complete information from the Canadian firearms information system in order to do their job. That is why licensing and firearms registration are so important.

Canadians are doing their share in ensuring public safety. When Canadians obtain a firearms licence and register their firearms, they support safe and healthy communities across the country. Our compliance rates represent a major success for such a new regulatory program of this nature.

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright for the opportunity to rise in the House today and answer his questions.

First I want to say that the Canadian Firearms Program is complete and fully operational. It is up to us to ensure that any government program is carried out as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.

Significant steps have been taken to reduce costs and provide more information to Parliament on the Canada Firearms Centre and the Canadian firearms program. Costs to the centre are now half of what they were in fiscal 2000-01 and will continue to decline to $85 million in 2005-06 and beyond.

Hon. members will also recall that in May 2004 the government announced an annual $25 million cap on firearms registration activities to be implemented beginning in 2005-06. By 2006-07, when revenues from firearms licences and other fees are taken into account, the net annual cost of the Canada Firearms Centre to Canadians will be approximately $57 million annually.

Effective firearms control is contributing to public safety. According to Statistics Canada, the firearms related homicide rate in Canada in 2003 was less than half the rate in 1975. Other firearm related crimes, such as armed robbery, have also declined significantly.

As I already mentioned, not only do the Canadian Firearms Program and the Canadian Firearms Information System work, but they work very well.

Police are using the firearms program information in their day-to-day work to respond to calls to prevent crime and investigate offences. There have been 3.6 million queries on the Canadian firearms registry on-line since 1998 by police and other public safety officials. The Canada Firearms Centre produced more than 2,200 affidavits in 2004 to support firearm related criminal prosecution.

More than 13,000 licences have been refused or revoked to date by firearms officers across the country on public safety grounds, including reasons such as a history of domestic violence, drug offences, mental health issues and other concerns. The Canada Firearms Centre responds to numerous calls annually on its 1-800 line for public safety or spousal violence risk.

I would like to emphasize that Canadian police stand by the firearms program. Both the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Professional Police Association support the firearms program, including the registration of all firearms. The majority of Canadians do support the firearms program.

In fact, an Environics survey taken in January 2003 found than 74% of Canadians supported the current gun control legislation. When Canadians obtain a firearm licence and register their firearms, they also support safe and healthy communities across the country.

Compliance is high as there are almost 2 million firearms licence holders in Canada, representing about a 90% compliance rate. Also, there are almost 7 million firearms registered, representing a rate approaching 90% of estimated firearms in our country.

This speaks to the large benefit in relation to the costs that are now managed and will be sustained at those levels.

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a coordinated effort among key regulatory bodies is critical to the success of our endeavours in respect to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

It is important that the government should continue to play a leadership role in building on the shared vision embodied in the cooperation plan. In doing so, we are creating a broader, long term framework for regulatory cooperation among northern regulators that benefits the process through ensuring timeliness, transparency, predictability, clarity and certainty.

In short, our work in the north in respect to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline continues and our efforts in ensuring its sustainability endure.

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North for providing me with an opportunity to inform the House about the progress being made in the area of northern development and to assuage any concerns he may have that progress on the Mackenzie Valley may in any way be threatened. I can say with certainty that this is not the case.

As has been indicated in the House by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the government continues to work with the President of the Treasury Board on smart regulations, specifically dealing with the regulatory regime in place in the north with respect to the development of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

Over the last several months we have been reviewing the recommendations contained in the smart regulations report. I am pleased to report to the House that one of the regulations related to the Mackenzie gas project highlighted the cooperation plan as a model for streamlining the regulatory regime in Canada's north.

We are continuing our review of this and other recommendations that relate to the northern regulatory environment. We do so with a view to determining how they can be best implemented in our northern operating environment.

I wish to remind the hon. member opposite and assure him that the environmental assessment and regulatory regime in the Mackenzie Valley is the result of aboriginal land claim agreements negotiated and legislated between these parties and the Government of Canada. Working together, we want to ensure that the spirit and intent of settled land claims are met and done so in a spirit of trust and respect.

There could be no mistaking the government's commitment to the effective and sustainable development of Canada's north. I should emphasize that the Government of Canada's participation in the environmental assessment and regulatory review of the Mackenzie Valley gas project is being undertaken on behalf of every individual in Canada.

Let me further assure the House that through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and its pipeline-readiness office, the government continues to meet its commitments as outlined in the cooperation plan. A coordinated and effective environmental assessment and regulatory review process, which reduces duplication and meets the legislative needs of all parties, are in fact key elements of the cooperation plan.

In short, I wish to applaud the hon. member for his commitment to sustainable development of the vast potential of Canada's north. We continue to work with vigour to address any issues that arise. We are committed to working together with first nations governments and we will continue to forge ahead to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that this government is committed to contributing to safe communities across Canada and that public safety is a paramount consideration in all decision-making.

The minister is still committed to reviewing sentencing and parole. One of the roadblocks up until now has been the fact that the justice committee has a very extensive workload. There is now a subcommittee that has been formed and I know the minister, and the government, is currently reviewing how to proceed with this review.

I can undertake to follow up with the minister and make an assessment and a determination of how and when that review will be conducted. I think that it would be in our interest and the government's interest, and in the interest of the people of Canada to review sentencing and parole. We must ensure that we are doing the right thing so that we can avoid, wherever possible, the kind of situation that did occur in the member's riding.

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a question raised in the House on November 26, 2004, by my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake.

The question concerned the rehabilitation, release and monitoring of violent offenders by the Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service Canada is mandated through the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to contribute to a safe society by assisting offenders to rehabilitate and to reintegrate into the community. The law dictates certain conditions and limitations on the length of time that an offender can remain incarcerated. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the vast majority of offenders are serving fixed sentences and are eventually returned to their communities.

The National Parole Board is an independent tribunal that has exclusive authority to release offenders. No one can influence its decisions, including the Minister.

All National Parole Board decisions are made following a thorough assessment of risk, which examines the offender's past, his or her present, and his or her future.

In making its release decisions, the National Parole Board considers all available information, including recommendations and concerns of Correctional Service Canada, as well as information from the police, the courts, psychologists and others, including victims of crime.

In order to fulfill its mandate, Correctional Service Canada operates on the principle that society is best protected when offenders are able to re-establish themselves in the community under conditions that minimize their risk of reoffending.

Gradual, structured release of offenders to the community, when it is safe to do so and with proper supervision and support, is effective in ensuring the safety of our communities.

Release is not automatic. Conditional release decisions are based on a thorough assessment of risk, and public safety is always the paramount consideration.

Correctional Service Canada's public safety results are evidence that CSC, or Correctional Service Canada, is fulfilling its mandate. The rates for successful completion of conditional release are among the highest in recent years. Some 94% of offenders on conditional release last year successfully completed their sentences without reoffending and 1% were re-convicted for violent crimes.

The member asked why we continued to release violent offenders into the community without rehabilitation or monitoring. The fact is that this is not the case.

As soon as offenders enter a federal prison, and throughout their sentence, they undergo intensive assessments. These assessments determine the offender's security and programming needs. The assessment forms the basis of the offender's correctional plan for treatment and intervention throughout the offender's sentence. The aim of this plan is to help the offenders address the factors that caused their criminal behaviours. CSC actively encourages offenders to participate in their correctional plans and progress is monitored.

The ultimate goal is to rehabilitate the offender. The more successfully offenders complete recommended programming and treatment, the better their chances of successful reintegration. Released offenders may also be subject to strict supervision conditions. Any violation of those conditions can result in a return to the penitentiary.

As I indicated earlier, most offenders will eventually be returned to the community. However, some offenders will be ordered detained by the National Parole Board.