Roy Cullen

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, certainly the Bloc motion is not a motion that I will be supporting at all and for two important reasons. First, the motion says that Canada should play a lead at the international level in activities to eliminate tax havens. Of course, Canada is playing a lead in doing just that. In fact, Canada is very much a party to the OECD harmful tax competition exercise and Canada was at the forefront of this initiative.

While it is true that there is a worrisome flow of money or of funds of income around the developed world to tax havens, it is not true that Canada is not part of the exercise to combat that. In fact, the Government of Canada is playing a leadership role.

When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I was at a number of sessions where Canada was at the forefront of putting our case forward that we needed to deal with tax evasion and funds that were finding their ways to tax havens.

The argument now has become more of increased transparency. When authorities in Europe, the United States and Canada have a suspicion that a Canadian taxpayer is evading Canadian tax, perhaps the tax haven would be more forthcoming with information so that the tax authorities can check that out. I must say that we are making progress on that front.

The second part of the motion that is faulty talks about a tax convention with Barbados. The reason for a tax convention is to avoid double taxation. We have many Canadian companies that work and operate in Barbados. If it is the case, and it is the case, that Barbados is a low tax environment, then if companies are paying low or limited taxes in Barbados, then they are not going to get much relief from that, but they are not going to be double taxed. That is the purpose of the convention.

The member for Drummond cited an example where a company would take out a loan and deduct the interest in Canada against tax payable. Of course, interest is a deductible expense in Canada and so it should be. However, if that company were to take the money and put it into a tax haven, that income would be taxable under Canadian tax laws.

In fact, that is why the government put in the reporting requirements, so that individuals and corporations would have to report world income in a more structured, cohesive and sounder way. That is why the government is pursuing that and being vigilant to ensure that Canadian taxpayers, whether they be corporations or individuals, report their world income and are taxed in Canada, irrespective of whether the income was derived in a tax haven.

I wonder why it is that the member would be concerned about a convention with Barbados when it is a low tax regime and that Canadian companies operating there would get very little relief from the taxes they pay in Barbados because they are not paying much there?

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-212, coincidentally my private member's bill, an act respecting user fees.

This bill requires more oversight of Parliament when user fees are introduced or increased. It calls for an independent dispute resolution process, the need for greater stakeholder participation in the fee setting process, the requirement for comprehensive stakeholder impact and competitiveness analysis and the establishment of standards by departments and agencies which they must adhere to when they collect a user fee.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No.13, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote recorded against.

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting against this motion.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of the various amendments to Bill C-24.

I support transparency in donations that are made to political parties, to candidates and to members of Parliament. I support full disclosure and full transparency, and I say that unequivocally. Members of parliament should have transparency in disclosing the kind of support we receive across a broad spectrum of Canadian society.

I know there have been many discussions and negotiations at committee on the bill and it looks like some progress has been made. However I still have a number of concerns and they fall into essentially three categories.

First, my most fundamental questions are: Why do we need the bill? What problem are we trying to fix? I will come back to that in a moment.

Second, I have concerns about the limits to corporations and to unions. I will come back to that in a moment.

Third, we have had a serious lack of effective consultation on the bill. I understand that many of the parties are agreeable to some of the amendments but I wonder if we are not rushing into this without having a proper review of the implementation and without having the major stakeholder groups onside and supporting this important legislation.

I would like to come back to my first question. Why is the bill needed? As I said earlier, we need full transparency, and I certainly support that aspect of the bill, but the bill goes beyond that. It seems to me that the government is trying to deal with perceptions among Canadians, perceptions that perhaps politicians are not totally honourable people and perhaps are influenced by donations from corporations and unions.

It seems to me that government should be leading, not by dealing with perceptions but by dealing with substantive issues. If the perceptions are wrong, then the government should be communicating to Canadians that parliamentarians are honourable people and are not influenced by donations in their service to the Canadian public.

We did have some problems with the sponsorship program in the province of Quebec, which was a very unfortunate circumstance. The Minister of Public Works has taken it upon himself to remedy that situation. Sponsorship contracting has all been brought back in-house and I think that will deal with that particular problem.

Therefore why do we need legislation to respond to one particular circumstance? My perception is that this legislation is partly in response to some of the very difficult situations the government found itself in with respect to the sponsorship program in the province of Quebec. However does that mean we need legislation to limit donations for corporations and unions as a matter of general policy? I have some difficulty with that.

I do not have any difficulty limiting corporate donations and donations from unions because some of the amounts can get quite large, which can become a problem, although maybe not consciously. However to limit corporate and union donations to $1,000 is somewhat overkill.

In my riding it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. I think I can count on my left hand the number of corporate or union donations I have received that have exceeded $1,000. In fact, if I did see one I would probably ask myself why they were doing that.

Typically, my fundraisers include a reception at which corporations, individuals and organizations might pay $200 to attend and support the process. Do they really feel that by buying a ticket to my fundraiser for $200 they will be creating all kinds of access or opportunities for them to influence government?

I am sorry, while I very much appreciate their support, a $200 donation at my fundraiser will not exactly pave the way for instant access to the government, or to me for that matter. I have very much of an open door policy in my riding. Citizens can pick up the phone and say that they want to see me, and that will happen. It may not happen that day or that week but it will happen. Access is not a problem.

If we look at the Canadian bankers for example, they are one of the largest donators to political parties. In fact they are like many large corporations, they donate to all the major political parties. They might donate to the governing party in a larger amount but they donate to all the political parties. They support the process.

If we recall, in 1988 the bankers wanted bank mergers very badly. The government said no. They must have asked themselves what value their corporate donations made or what value they had. I suspect that really when we look at it, they probably would not necessarily put the question to themselves in that way because they are supporting the democratic process. They also know that in the formation of public policy, sometimes one is successful and sometimes one is not, depending on the issue and the validity of the issue being pursuing.

The way the bill is presented and the one we will probably vote on will have no impact on me at the riding level. I just want to make that clear.

One of the difficulties is we disengage corporate Canada and unions. When we go to big fundraising dinners with the Prime Minister, we meet people and network with them. Sometimes we put a face to a name or there is a fleeting moment where someone could raise an issue. It is a matter of communications, networking and having corporate Canada and unions engaged in the process. The bill is somewhat of an overkill to deal with something that seems to be a perception problem.

The other problem I see with the bill is we will end up going to the public purse for more subsidies for the political process. We have a system that is frankly working, where we have corporate Canada and unions already supporting the political process. I do not really believe it buys them that much influence. There have been some exceptions, but in general terms I do not believe it does. Nor do they look upon it that way. They want to make contact, support the process and engage in the public policy process in the politics of the country.

I could support certain limits to the corporate and union donations but I have difficulty with the $1,000 limit. If in my riding of Etobicoke North, I get a donation from the president of a local company for $2,000, will I really think that person, on a personal level, thinks I am a nice guy and that I do a good job? If I get a donation from the president of a local company for $2,000, my bells will start to ring, that there is something people want. It will not be that individual; it will be that individual on behalf of the corporation.

We all have to deal with these realities. When I get a large donations, maybe $500 or $750, I do ask myself what those people might be looking for. At that level, I do not spend too much time thinking about it but I appreciate that the corporate world and unions in my riding are engaged in the political process.

I personally support full transparency. Every Canadian should know exactly who has donated to my campaign and to every member in the House, every candidate. However I have difficulties with the current limits that are proposed in the bill.

I understood there were to be report stage amendments which unfortunately were ruled out of order. That of course is the prerogative of the Chair. However I was hoping for that kind of relief on the bill. It did not happen. I will now have some difficulty supporting those limits where we are basically disengaging corporate Canada and unions from the political process.

[Free Trade Agreements, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, maintaining and enhancing a strong investment flow is important to a strong and vibrant Canadian economy. Capital flows worldwide have grown rapidly in recent years. Global outward foreign direct investment has increased more than tenfold over the past two decades, from U.S. $568 billion in 1982 to U.S. $6.55 trillion in 2001.

Canada is an active and strong player in this global economy. For example, Canadian direct investment abroad has more than quadrupled, from $98 billion in 1990 to $432 billion in 2002, and since 1996 has surpassed foreign direct investment in Canada.

Canadian investment abroad spurs the growth of Canadian companies and innovaction and technology which in turn creates jobs in Canada. In fact, an OECD study estimated that each $1 of outward investment generated $2 worth of additional exports. Over the same period of time, the stock of foreign direct investment in Canada more than doubled, from $131 billion to $349 billion in 2002.

Foreign investment in Canada is an important source for Canadian jobs, especially high skilled jobs. It also brings advantages in research and development, new ideas and technologies, and talented people. These spinoffs have all made lasting and real contributions to our economic and social well-being.

Investment also provides Canadians with access to the capital and expertise that makes our country stronger and contributes to the quality of life of every citizen.

It also should be noted that yet another benefit of foreign investment is that a large proportion of profits from new investments is reinvested in Canada, contributing to a higher growth rate and a rise in Canadian living standards. Clearly, maintaining and enhancing a strong flow of investment is vital to the health of the Canadian economy. As such, our government policy needs to support a secure and predictable business environment that provides Canada with the principal means of attracting investment to our communities and provides Canadian investors with the protection they need to expand into new markets.

Achieving a fair, open and secure environment for international investment both at home and abroad is key to increasing our productivity and our prosperity. Canada has long been a supporter of a rules based approach to international trade and investment where agreed rules regulate the flow of goods, services and investment. These rules help to bring the investment regimes in other countries to Canada's level of openness.

Investors are looking for a commitment to a stable and predictable environment and Canadian investors are requesting their government to pursue internationally-agreed rules of a high standard which ensure a level and transparent playing field, including recourse to an impartial dispute settlement mechanism.

Because Canada now invests more abroad than it receives in foreign investment at home, such protections are all the more important to Canadians. We can see clearly on trade issues what happens when rules based systems are not in place or not respected. The way that Canada's softwood lumber industry has been harassed by the U.S. industry over the last two decades is a tragic case in point.

Lumber I, as it is now affectionately referred to, was launched in 1982 and ended in 1983 with the U.S. department of commerce concluding that stumpage did not confer a countervailable subsidy. Lumber II began in 1986 and ended with a memorandum of understanding between Canada and the U.S., which provided for the levy of a 15% lumber export tax by Canada. This charge was subsequently eliminated.

In 1991 lumber III began, leading to a ruling by the U.S. department of commence in 1992 that stumpage and log export restrictions were not countervailable subsidies. In 1996, in the search for trade peace, Canada and the U.S.A. finalized an agreement on softwood lumber covering the five year period to March 31, 2001. Essentially, this agreement called for managed trade in softwood lumber, limiting exports from Canada through quotas. Here we are again with lumber IV to which has been added an anti-dumping duty.

The reality is that even though Canada succeeds in its arguments, a new countervailing duty process could be launched the very next day producing lumber V and an unlimited number beyond that.

Despite winning the battles, we are losing the war, so it should be no surprise to any of us that rules can be broken, but does that mean that we should give up on trade and investment rules? No, it does not because it is in our best interest to have them. I have introduced a motion into the House of Commons which will be debated this fall that addresses many of these concerns, but I do not have time to get into that today.

Trade and investment rules promote values that are important to Canadians. They reflect the principles upon which our governments already operate; that while mindful of public well-being, one must act in an even-handed and non-discriminatory manner. While freer trade drives our economic growth, Canada does not negotiate trade agreements at any price. We obtain benefits that are in the interests of Canadians. Despite outward interests, we remain alert to the implications for all areas of domestic policy. These rules do not restrict the rights of governments at any level from legitimately regulating or legislating, nor could a government be forced to remove or amend an existing regulation or legislation.

In addition, Canada's investment agreements contain a broad range of exceptions and reservations for social services, such as health, public education and social welfare, and sensitive sectors, such as culture, transportation, fisheries and telecommunications. They also contain specific exemptions which affirm the ability of countries to adopt and enforce measures that they consider appropriate to ensure that investments are undertaken in a manner sensitive to environmental concerns.

Canada implemented its first foreign investment protection agreement in 1990. Since then we have negotiated 22 further agreements and have included investment components in the NAFTA and the Canada-Chile free trade agreements.

Canada is currently negotiating the free trade area of the Americas, better known as the FTAA, the central America four, the CA4, and the Singapore free trade agreements. The Americas region represents Canada's most important market and strengthening our economic ties with this region is a high trade priority for the government. We are also holding preliminary discussions toward free trade with members of the Caribbean community and the five Andean countries.

Although the set of investment rules contained in NAFTA Chapter 11 has worked relatively well, there is always room for improvement.

As such, the government is not advocating the replication of the NAFTA dispute settlement rules in the FTAA.

While the government is committed to providing our investors with recourse to impartial dispute settlement, we are equally committed to ensuring that the experience gained through the operation of NAFTA chapter 11 is reflected in the FTAA and Canada's CA4 negotiations and in any future agreements. As part of this work, the government is studying the operation and provisions of chapter 11 and consulting widely on its operation.

Both today and before today we have heard arguments that chapter 11 works for U.S. corporations but we do not hear much about how it can work for Canadian corporations. I should note here that a major forest products company in Canada, Canfor Corporation, recently invoked the provisions of chapter 11 of NAFTA, claiming compensation from the U.S. administration for unfairly diminishing the value of its corporate assets as a result of the unjust and unfair countervailing duty and dumping charges on its softwood lumber to the United States, and there may be others. Chapter 11 does work both ways.

The government has several mechanisms in place to facilitate consultations on chapter 11 of NAFTA: regular federal-provincial consultations, a federal-municipal working group, and ongoing consultations with key stakeholders such as the business, academic, legal and NGO communities. In addition, Canada is actively engaged, with our NAFTA partners, in a thorough review of chapter 11 with the objective of clarifying the provisions if required.

In conclusion, the Canadian government is determined to provide the best protection possible to Canadian investments abroad. It has also made a commitment to put into place an investment structure that is stable, predictable and transparent, this being essential if we are to attract foreign investment to Canada.

We do not and will not, however, negotiate this at any price. Canada's position on this is very clear. We will use the knowledge gained from the operation and analysis of chapter 11 and we will continue to safeguard Canada's fundamental values, including our legislative and regulatory framework, to protect the health, safety and environment of Canadians.

[William Osler Health Centre, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the SARS outbreak is challenging enough for Ontario hospital staff and physicians, but managing a hospital evacuation in one month and then managing the prevention of the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome in the next month has certainly shown that staff and physicians at William Osler Health Centre have an extraordinary commitment to the health of their patients.

During the month of February a power failure necessitated the evacuation of William Osler Health Centre's Brampton campus. This event demonstrated the teamwork, commitment and dedication of the health care individuals who work under sometimes very trying circumstances.

A short month later William Osler Health Centre staff rose to the next challenge, the management of SARS.

Tireless individual effort and exceptional teamwork across all three sites, and specifically the Etobicoke campus, once again enabled the William Osler team to successfully implement the provincial directives on SARS.

Congratulations to Bob Bell, the president and CEO of the Etobicoke campus of the William Osler Health Centre, and to all the staff and volunteers at this great hospital.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-28, the budget implementation act, 2003. Budget 2003 was an important budget and another budget which continued the tradition of the government of dealing with deficits, creating more budgetary surpluses, reducing taxes, paying down the debt, and investing in priorities that are important to Canadians.

Budget 2003 was the fifth budgetary surplus that the government has experienced in the last few years. We have paid down the debt by $47.6 billion and reduced the federal debt to GDP ratio to 46.5%, which will diminish to just under 40% in the next few years. At the same time, unlike what the member opposite said, the government made some enormous investments in families through the Canada child tax benefit which it introduced. In fact, it will cumulatively reach just over $14 billion over the next five or six years, a huge investment which did not exist before.

Every single year we have introduced more measures to help those with disabilities and this budget was no exception. In addition to that, there were huge investments of approximately $3 billion in Canada's physical infrastructure which will invest in sewers, highways and public transit, and renew Canada's physical infrastructure.

The budget invested $35 billion in the health care system and called for greater accountability by the provinces so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast will have a better understanding of what their health dollars are purchasing, what outcomes are being obtained by the health care system, and how the health care outcomes in Yukon compare to those in New Brunswick. This will allow us to measure what health dollars are buying with the money, tax dollars which are very important to all Canadians.

In addition, the budget built on the measures of the past by protecting the $100 billion tax cut, the largest tax cut in Canadian history, and included other tax measures. It helped small businesses by eliminating or phasing out the capital tax, a tax which had no policy rationale and was basically a penalty on investment. It will be phased out and that is a very positive thing.

The small business tax rate limit was increased from $200,000 to $300,000 which will help small businesses grow and prosper in Canada. They are one of the largest engines of job creation in our economy. Again we will add to the favourable tax rates as they relate to small business in Canada.

I could go on and on about the attributes of this budget. That has been lacking in the debate heretofore apart from my colleagues who have studied the budget on this side of the House in more detail and are aware of the many attributes and positive things that this budget will bring to Canadians.

There were investments in affordable housing. In my riding of Etobicoke North we have an affordable housing crunch. I was pleased to see that the federal government and Ontario recently concluded an affordable housing agreement. We are working in Etobicoke North to capture some of the benefits of that by getting some initiatives moving. Too many people are paying too much in relation to their income on rents and too many people on fixed incomes are being forced out of their homes because of property tax increases. I was happy to see investments in affordable housing.

The budget covered a whole myriad of other things, but I would like to turn to debate the report stage amendments. These are amendments that came through the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. I believe there was a whole raft of amendments. I cannot remember the exact number, but these amendments were passed in committee and are now on the floor of the chamber.

I should say too that there has been some cynicism about whether the Minister of Finance and the government actually listen to Canadians. I am on the House of Commons finance committee and we do a prebudget consultation every year. We travel from coast to coast to coast, submit a report to the House and to the Minister of Finance.

Just out of curiosity, I wondered how many of the recommendations that were in our report made it into the budget. We went out and asked Canadians what priorities they felt should be reflected in the upcoming budget and they told us. We put those recommendations into a report, took it to the Minister of Finance and we tabled that report here in the House. Two-thirds, or thereabouts, of the recommendations of the House of Commons finance committee found their way into budget 2003.

I would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance and previous ministers of finance for listening to Canadians, for starting the process of prebudget consultations, for not staying in Ottawa to listen to the same old voices, but to actually go out and listen to Canadians across this great land, to find out their priorities, their needs and to listen to what they thought we should do in the next budget.

As I said, two-thirds of the recommendations that were in the finance committee report made it into the federal budget. My colleague, the member for York West, who chaired the urban task force of our caucus, also cited many of the recommendations that were in their task force report that made it into the federal budget.

Let me move on to Motion No. 13 which would affect school boards. It is a very important matter and it has to do with the GST and the application of the GST. Many school boards contracted out their school bus operations which created a GST issue. By doing that, it was argued, they should have a larger rebate than would otherwise normally be available to this type of institution. There were court cases on this particular point and the federal court ruled in favour of some of the appellants. However, at the same time, the government looked at this particular tax policy and said that it really was not its intent, that this was a misuse of that provision.

The government indicated through policy that it would react to that and change the policy, and change it retroactively. Some people might find that somewhat abhorrent. Frankly, the government uses that only in very rare circumstances, but there have been times when the tax policy has been interpreted in a way that clearly was not the intent, and any reasonable person would say that was not the intent or the spirit of the measure. The government did say that of the court cases that had been decided, those school boards would get the benefit of the higher GST rebate, but it signaled that that would be the end of it.

Notwithstanding that, some of the school boards continued through the court system, and therefore the act was changed to reflect the government's stated intention. This motion would undo some of that and it is for that reason that the government is not supporting it. Frankly I see the wisdom behind that particular stance.

We have had discussions here about the motions as they relate to the disability tax credit. By defeating these amendments, we would allow people who have a disability with respect to feeding themselves or dressing themselves, and it does not have to be in combination, the tax credit. It seems to me that is a very reasonable stance to take and I will be supporting that. I will be voting against that particular amendment, which for some reason would take that away from people with disabilities.

However, by the same token, the government is saying that it will not go so far as to say that people will be entitled to the benefit if they have certain allergies to certain types of food which increases their time for shopping, et cetera. I have some friends who have this type of challenge and, while we all empathize with it, the tax system is not really designed to deal with things like that.

I will end things there and say that I will be voting against those amendments and I encourage other members in the House to do the same. I would like to encourage members to support this budget, which is a very fine budget.

[Petitions, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by many individuals in the Toronto area. The petitioners ask Parliament to declare February 25 a public holiday to be called “Jubilee Day” in honour of the Queen of Canada's golden jubilee.