Roy Cullen

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, of course the legislation proposes a formula by which the public monies would be allocated to parties based on their results in the last election. I have not studied that in detail because my problems are more fundamental than that. However there would have to be some mechanism.

The member for Elk Island makes an important point. The Liberal Party, the Alliance Party, the NDP, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc have fundraising dinners where the leader and others are featured and profiled. People and companies attend and pay so much a plate for dinner. This involves a political process. They are able to meet members of Parliament, party officials, volunteers and staff in ministers' offices. They are able to interconnect and talk about issues. Do we really believe that those people who attend those dinners influence the public policy process? I think it is naive to think that is the case.

We must look at the fact that most corporations donate to all political parties. It is true that they might donate more to the party in power but they donate to all major parties.

I am not sure what the problem is that we are trying to fix. Maybe we could introduce limits. Some of these amounts do become quite large. It is hard to predicate exactly what they do in terms of the thinking processes.

However, to put an outright limit, which is what is proposed in the bill, at $1,000 is wrongfooted. In fact, my riding is very industrial. I have a fundraiser and it is supported for $500 by industry. Do people really think that will suddenly change my mind on important matters of public policy in Canada and debate in the House of Commons? I am sorry but if companies really believe that, then they are picking the wrong candidate. I think that probably goes for everybody in the House.

I do not know what else to say, other than that I agree with the member opposite.

[Canada Elections Act, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing).

I should say at the outset that I support full disclosure of political donations, full transparency and accountability. Canadians should know what individuals, companies, unions and other organizations are donating to which MPs, senators, candidates and political parties.

I support much that is in Bill C-24, in particular measures that would lead to greater transparency and accountability in the political process. I am not sure, though, why political financing has emerged as a political priority at this time. In my view, we have many other pressing priorities: the potential for war in Iraq, for example; health care funding and accountability; implementing the Kyoto accord; renewing our public service; and fixing the gun control registry problems.

Legislation should be used sparingly, in my view, as a tool to correct a wrong, fix a problem and/or enhance public policy and administration. Legislation should also always be preceded with meaningful consultation with Canadians.

I am not convinced that the political financing aspects of Bill C-24 meet the two tests I have just described. Allow me to explain why.

First, I am not sure what problem we are trying to fix or how the bill would improve public policy and administration in Canada. The bill would allow political donations to be made by individuals only, the exception being contributions of up to $1,000 for a corporation or trade union.

Corporations and unions have been involved in the political process in Canada for a long time, perhaps since as early as Confederation. We need to encourage, not discourage, their participation. Do we have any evidence that corporations or unions buy influence when they donate to political parties in Canada? I am not aware of any such evidence.

More recently, the government did have some problems with a sponsorship program in the Province of Quebec, but the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is making significant changes to this program. In fact, the sponsorship program will be delivered largely in house, not contracted out. Allegations of wrongdoing and favouritism are under investigation by the Auditor General and, where appropriate, the RCMP to deal with these problems of sponsorship. In my view, this aspect of alleged political interference is being dealt with very aggressively by the government.

The reality is that most large corporations and many of the smaller ones make donations to all political parties. The company I worked for before being elected, a large natural resource company in Canada, supported all political parties in Canada. I went to fundraisers for the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP.

In 1998, four of Canada's chartered banks proposed two mergers. I should note that Canada's major banks are the largest financial contributors to political parties in Canada. By and large, they donate to all parties. Did their large donations facilitate that merger of the banks which the banks very seriously wanted to transact? No, it did not make any difference at all. If banks in Canada merge, it will hinge on prudential and competitiveness factors and on whether or not the proposed mergers are in the public interest. It will be no more or no less than that.

Do we in this House believe that when ministers are making decisions they refer to lists of corporate, individual and union donations? This is naive in the extreme.

We are told that buying influence is not a real problem, but that there is a perception among Canadians that this is the case. I believe that as legislators we have enough real challenges to deal with. We should not be legislating to deal with perceptions.

I should note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

Comparisons with the U.S. system are sometimes made. We all know that the amounts spent in Canada to finance political parties and candidates do not even come close when compared with the system in the United States. By way of example, election campaign expenses in my riding of Etobicoke North, as is the case with all political federal ridings, are limited by law and are thoroughly monitored and audited by Elections Canada.

During the last election campaign, my campaign expenses were limited to some $55,000 and of that my campaign team spent approximately $35,000 on the election campaign. When we compare that to the multimillion election campaign expenses incurred to elect U.S. senators, congressmen and women and the U.S. president, our figures pale in comparison.

The $1,000 limit for corporations would have limited or no impact in my riding of Etobicoke North. Only rarely would my riding association or official agent during an election campaign receive a cheque in excess of $500 from any company, individual or union.

At the national level, however, with the legislation before us, political parties would be starved of funds. Taxpayers would have to make up the difference, some $110 million over the typical life of a government.

It is true that the taxpayer subsidizes the political process to date with tax credits and the like, but we would be adding a further demand on the Canadian taxpayer to support this process which would be close to $110 million over the typical life of a government.

I personally would support some limits on corporate or union donations to political parties, a limit of say $10,000 for both corporations and unions, but why would we ask Canadians to further subsidize the political process? I hope the government will be open to amendments to the bill. The government says that it is.

This now leads me to the process that the government has adopted in introducing the legislation. The period for consultation has been very limited, almost non-existent. The party president of our own Liberal Party of Canada has called the political financing policy proposal “dumb as a bag of hammers”. I am sure that if he had it to do over again he might not have said that but that is what he said. I am sure many political parties share that view.

The grassroots members and volunteers of federal political parties across Canada need more time to digest the bill and opportunities for input leading to changes. Many technical matters are in need of review. For example, if in any one year there is a nomination, an election or perhaps two elections in one year, which has happened in Canada, how do we allocate the limits? There are a number of other technical questions like that.

The people at the grassroots level are the people closest to the action. They know what works and what does not and they are very familiar with the old adage “if it is working, why fix it?”

We need a transparent and accountable political process and system. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the concept of influence buying. Pragmatic limits to corporate and union contributions to political parties may be required but the limits proposed in Bill C-24 are unreasonably low. Canadian taxpayers deserve better.

We should proceed with the bill based on the principles enunciated but improve the bill in committee.

[Petitions, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a variety of petitioners who are concerned that the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits rural route mail couriers from having collective bargaining rights. They call upon Parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Petitions, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is signed by 609 residents of the GTA who are concerned about the encroachment of development on city conservation. They ask Parliament to have the federal government enact legislation to develop federal green spaces within our cities.

[Foreign Affairs, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps he could expand on the earlier reply by the Prime Minister.

As the minister knows, there is disagreement in NATO about the need for that alliance to provide assistance to Turkey if Iraq attacks in the event of military operations in the region.

What is Canada's position on this very important issue and why?

[Food Service Industry, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's biggest and most dynamic industries has reached a significant milestone that I would like to recognize today.

The food service industry is a $42 billion industry in Canada. It employs a million people, a figure not many industries can match.

According to a recent report from Statistics Canada, the food service industry hired its one millionth employee sometime in 2002. That person may have been a teenager stepping into his or her first job learning valuable skills, such as dealing with people, meeting deadlines and solving problems. Or maybe that person was a skilled chef, a human resource manager, a marketing expert, a CEO or an entrepreneur investing in bricks and mortar while creating dozens of new jobs.

With more than 63,000 restaurants, bars and caterers, the food service industry has invested in communities from coast to coast to coast.

It is my pleasure and privilege to acknowledge the industry's one million employees and its tremendous contribution to Canada's record of job creation and economic growth.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by my colleague from Halton. I know that he was about to expand on how this could be a transportation budget.

If we look at greenhouse gases, 28% of greenhouse gases or thereabouts come from the transportation sector. There are many challenges. There is the need for more public transit. There are cities like Toronto with urban sprawl. There are trucks that are getting new engines that will reduce smog but will actually be less energy efficient, which runs counter to the Kyoto convention. There are a number of challenges in the transportation sector.

I wonder if the member would like to expand on why this could be a transportation budget.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, over the years I have enjoyed working with the member for Elk Island on the finance committee. He is not on the finance committee any longer.

Today I was very pleased that the Prime Minister reached out to the premiers to see if there was some compromise or some way in which we could make the Kyoto accord ratification more feasible. For that reason I was happy that we brought in the cap. Frankly I do not think we will have to use it. I do not think the taxpayers will be on the hook, but it does a lot in terms of investor confidence. We want investment in Canada because that will grow jobs.

I should say that with respect to the finance committee report, it has influenced budget decisions. I know that for a fact and it will continue to do that. It is a very good process. I look forward to participating in that exercise in the years to come.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government, in the tax policies that have been introduced in budget 2000, the economic statement and prior to that, has focused on middle and low income Canadians. That is where most of the tax cuts have taken place.

I agree with the member's comments regarding seniors on fixed incomes. There are many seniors, including in my riding of Etobicoke North, on fixed incomes. Their property taxes are increasing and they are at risk of losing their homes. My riding also has many seniors who live in apartments. The rents are at the point where they are having to look at whether they can sustain those rents, as they are well in excess of the 30% benchmark that is often used.

We need to deal with the problems faced by seniors on fixed incomes. The demographics are telling us that this will become a bigger and bigger problem. As it becomes a bigger problem, it becomes a more expensive challenge to deal with.

Our government has taken many Canadians off the tax rolls over the years. In the last couple of budgets, 900,000 Canadians who used to pay taxes are not paying taxes. We need to deal especially with low income Canadians, medium income Canadians and especially the seniors on fixed incomes.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

I am happy to take part in the prebudget debate. It is a great occasion for members of Parliament to comment on what they feel some of the priorities should be in the upcoming budget that will be presented by the Minister of Finance probably in February 2003.

The House of Commons just voted to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Now the hard work begins. The government must establish a central agency, body or department that would take the overall responsibility for coordinating the government's implementation plan. There are still many details to be spelled out.

In the 2003 budget I would like to see some economic instruments that would result in some signals to the economy and to Canadians. I would like to see some incentives, even perhaps some disincentives, although I favour the carrot to the stick. Incentives would offer encouragement for Canadians to change their behaviour and that is Canadian business, Canadian consumers and Canadian citizens. We will have to change our behaviour. The 2003 budget would provide an opportunity for the Minister of Finance to provide some well targeted and strategic tax incentives, and other economic instruments to facilitate the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

There is no point in signing a protocol if we are not going to meet its objectives. The Kyoto objectives are ambitious ones. We need to start dealing with greenhouse gases. The Minister of Finance would have an opportunity in his upcoming budget to do some work that would assist us in meeting those goals.

I am a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Every year we travel across Canada to do our prebudget consultations. The committee talks to Canadians across this great country and asks them what the priorities should be for the upcoming budget. The House of Commons finance committee recently tabled its report to the House and set out a framework for the Minister of Finance, and indeed for the House, to consider in the fiscal plan to move forward.

There were some key messages there that we heard and that are reflected in the report. Canadians will not tolerate going back into deficit. We have worked too hard to get to a position where we have surpluses in our budget. We will be going into our sixth year of budgetary surpluses. We cannot even contemplate going back into deficit.

We do know that there are significant expenditure pressures on the government. We have the Romanow commission report on health care. We also have the Kirby report from the Senate dealing with health care. We should pick and choose some of the best recommendations from both reports. It does not have to be all or nothing with each report. There are excellent recommendations in both reports and the government should find the optimal solutions in working with the provinces on how we will bolster health care.

I have said from the start that we must put more money into health care. The health care system needs some re-engineering. We have patients in long term care beds which are costing taxpayers about a thousand dollars a day because there is no home care, no long term care or extended care facilities across Canada.

Recently I talked with the person in my riding who manages hospital beds. He said that 20% of the patients should not really be there. They should be in lower cost alternatives. That would be better for the patients and more cost effective as well.

Canadians have told us that we need to protect the $100 billion tax cut that was brought in by the former finance minister in 2000. This tax cut was the largest in Canadian history. Some would argue that we should go further. Perhaps we should go further in this budget. I am not so sure that it would be feasible. Certainly we should be looking at personal income taxes which are still out of line with the rest of the world. We should also take some steps to deal with the resource sector.

When the government brought the corporate tax rate down or phased it in over a number of years to 21% the resource sector was left at 28% and not for an illogical reason. They do have other tax incentives, such as the exploration tax credit, accelerated depreciation, and the resource allowance.

There has been enough discussion with the oil and gas industry and the mining sector that we should be able to deal with this comprehensively in the budget. It is especially important, given the Kyoto protocol, that the oil and gas industry and the mining industry are going to have some cost pressures on them. It is time that the minister announced in the budget a tax package that deals with the higher statutory rate that exists for those industries.

We should also not forget about the fact that we need to reduce our debt. Right now the level of debt to GDP is at 49% which is down from a high of 71% in 1995. The finance committee suggested that we set a target of 30% because we still are very heavily indebted as a nation and that is costing us a lot of resources annually just to service the debt. In fact, by having paid down what we have paid so far, $46 billion, that is saving $3 billion a year, each and every year. Those moneys could be redeployed for other higher priority uses.

There are also a couple of pet projects of mine that I would like to see the minister deal with in the budget.

One is tax policies that would encourage the formation of employee share ownership plans. In years past we have introduced policies that are supportive of the taxation of stock options and that is a positive development. We have also reduced the capital gains inclusion rate and the capital gains tax. Those are very positive developments but employee share ownership plans reach everybody in the company, from the receptionist, to the mail clerk, to the middle manager, to the driver, right up to the top. They are the people we need to reach.

We do know that companies with employee share ownership plans improve their productivity by 30% or beyond. We need to implement these policies so that we can improve our productivity because we still have productivity challenges in Canada.

I would like to see us help the voluntary sector more than we have done already. We have taken some very bold steps but I would like the government to eliminate the capital gains tax on the donation of marketable securities to charitable organizations. I also would like to see a level playing field with respect to private foundations. Right now private foundations do not have the same benefit as a public foundation with respect to the capital gains inclusion rate.

I would like to see a basic exemption on employment insurance of up to $2,000 a year which would allow students and others to be employed by restaurants and hotels. Companies would not feel they were being penalized by bringing in young people to work in their restaurants and hotels. It would be a job creator and the public purse would not be affected that negatively.

I support the recommendation in the finance committee report that the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act recognize refugees for student loans. My riding of Etobicoke North has a very large Somali Canadian population. Many of the women and children are stuck in their apartments. They cannot really reach out and be employed. Their children do not have access to student loans because they are refugees. These people are here to stay. I and others are trying to work with them to get their landed immigrant status but in the meantime, we should be encouraging them to get a higher education. If we do not, there will be a problem for society in the future.

With respect to more money for the provinces with the CHST, clearly we are heading down that road. It is the right thing to do but I would resist our government not calling for a greater transparency and greater accountability from the provinces. It does not mean we have to micromanage the health care system, far from it. However, Canadians need to understand where their money is going and what results and outcomes they are getting, They need to know for example, how the outcomes and results in the Yukon compare to the outcomes and results in Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces so that there are some benchmarks by which Canadians can measure the performance of the health care system.

Those are some of my pet projects. As I said at the outset, we need to not go into deficit. We need to protect the tax cuts. We need to give money to the provinces for the CHST, but we need more transparency and accountability as we transfer huge amounts of money to the provinces and territories.