Alan Tonks

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the previous questioner chastized him for straying into tax areas and straying away from the intent and context of the Alliance motion.

I will try not to be strayed in a second way by the member's question, but I will attempt to answer it.

I do not think it behooves us to try to understand the differences between American tax systems and how that government flows money through the states in sheer percentage terms because, just as there is a difference in the total array of tax supported services in the Untied States and a difference between that and Canada, so too is there a difference between the provinces in Canada.

I do not want to attempt to evade the question, but the issue here is to get closer to the principle of where taxes are raised from and apply them to services that will stimulate development and growth in a sustainable way in those areas. That is the issue and intent of the Alliance motion.

My reading of what is happening in British Columbia, since the member is most fluent with that, is that the province, while it has dedicated a portion of the gas tax, has not increased the total envelope with respect to the support of the transportation system, be it transit or roads. We still have an inequitable taxing situation, even in the hon. member's province.

The bottom line is that we can do better, in terms of sustainable development, in terms of meeting our Kyoto commitments, and in terms of using transportation technology to stimulate growth and employment. We can do it through a better knowledge and application of the taxation system.

I thought that is what the Alliance motion was attempting to do. If it is attempting to do that, and I believe it is, then the government is prepared to look at that very seriously.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the issue before us is about my personal voting behaviour or the member's.

The member is quite right. What is before us is the relationship in this country of a progressive and dynamic taxing strategy that would serve all Canadians. Part of the strategy is it would trickle down to the cities and would be directly related through the gas tax for matters related to urban and rural growth and sustainable development as it relates to transportation infrastructure. That is the issue.

Also, the reason perhaps the motion is more supportable is it was not clear in the first motion that the Alliance made but it is now more fundamentally clear. I believe that a very strong case has been made. We must be absolutely clear and sincere about this and look at it within the context of the motion and today's events, but we must also look at it within the capacity for us to have a sustainable taxing strategy.

I hope that answers both aspects of the member's question.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to speak to today's opposition motion for two reasons.

First, the issue of healthy and prosperous municipalities is a subject that is very close to my heart, having spent 25 years in the municipal field. Indeed it is of real national importance that cities can be looked upon as needing very special consideration by the federal government. We all could benefit in this House from the insights that can be shared in terms of ideas that could help serve the needs of cities better.

There is no question that Canada's cities and communities face significant challenges in providing the level of service and support that their citizens, and I might say 80% of all Canadians who live in cities, deserve. Perhaps working in partnership with the provinces and territories a share of the federal gas tax might offer an avenue to provide some of the additional resources that cities are looking for. It is something that we on this side consider certainly worth looking at.

This leads me to the second reason that I welcome the opportunity on behalf of the government to participate in today's debate. I believe it would be both timely and useful to provide the House with an important element of context about our government's fiscal intact performance, a context that in view of the discussion that has been raised with respect to the expenditure of money in the programs that general revenues support, should frame any discussion touching on federal taxation.

As hon. members know, since the beginning of our mandate in 1993, two of the government's core priority areas have been sound fiscal management and fairness in the taxation system. Both of these are extremely closely linked. The government understood from the start that we could never ease the overall tax burden on Canadians while running massive consistent deficits which were eating up 36¢ of every tax dollar in interest costs. A deficit dollar borrowed is nothing less than taxes deferred until tomorrow which future generations would have to pay and with the added cost of interest charges. That deficit would handcuff all levels of government, including cities, and Canadians from achieving today and in the future objectives for a high quality of social and environmental life.

That is why in the early years of our mandate while we did bring in targeted tax relief especially for families with children, our chief focus was on the tough action needed to get federal spending under control. The government succeeded, achieving Canada's first federal surplus in 1997-98 after 28 years of consecutive deficits.

One might ask what this has to do with federal taxation. The answer should be obvious. It was only after the government had put the country's books in order that we could afford to begin to bring down the tax burden for all Canadians. The government was successful in bringing that tax burden down.

In the 2000 budget the government launched a five year $100 billion tax reduction plan, the largest in Canadian history. That plan strengthened the foundation for economic growth and job creation in this country, allowing Canada to frequently lead the industrial world in growth during a difficult period in the world economy while at the same time helping low and middle income Canadians.

The benefits of this plan are already clear and concrete. It provided tax relief of $17 billion in 2001 and $20 billion in 2002. This will continue to grow, providing further tax relief of $24 billion this year and rising to more than $30 billion in 2004.

Let me humbly remind the House of some of the key elements contributing to this historic and ongoing tax reduction plan.

The government restored full inflation indexation of the personal tax system as of January 1, 2000. This meant that inflation no longer represented an automatic and hidden tax increase.

Effective January 1, 2001 personal income tax rates for all taxpayers were lowered. The 17% rate was lowered to 16%. The middle rate, which had been 26% in 1999, was lowered to 22%. The top rate was reduced from 29% to 26% on income between $60,000 and $100,000.

What does this mean for individual Canadians and families? It means that by 2004-05 we will have reduced federal personal income taxes by 21%. That is one-fifth on average. Families with children will benefit even more with average tax savings of 27%.

The government's five year tax reduction plan has also been promoting economic growth and jobs by creating an advantage for investment and entrepreneurial initiative in Canada. We reduced the 28% general corporate income tax to 23% and it is legislated to fall further to 21% next year.

In the 2003 budget the government provided further support to small business and entrepreneurs, including an increase in the small business deduction limit from $200,000 to $300,000 over four years. This will result in an annual savings of up to $9,000 for many local Canadian companies.

Another measure eliminates the $2 million limit on the amount of small business investment eligible for the capital gains rollover. This will help small firms to access the risk capital that is so important to expansion, growth and the pursuit of new markets. The government announced that we are phasing out the federal capital tax over a period of five years and eliminating it next year for medium size corporations.

As a result of the government's corporate tax initiatives, effective this year Canada's average federal-provincial corporate tax rate is below that of the United States. I have heard some comparisons to the American tax system. By 2008 the positive difference between Canadian federal-provincial and American federal-state corporate tax rates is expected to reach 6.2% in Canada's favour. This is not affected by current tax changes proposed by the United States administration. Our tax reduction action has not stopped there, though.

We have increased the limits of tax assisted savings in registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs.

We will be cutting employment insurance contribution rates by a further 12¢ to $1.98 per $100 of insurable earnings for 2004. This is the 10th premium rate cut since 1994. It will bring yearly savings for workers and employers to over $9 billion. While this rate reduction applies to everyone, it will be particularly beneficial to small business, a key economic engine for so many smaller municipalities and communities.

Moving on, I think we would all agree that children, young people, play a special role in any community. We have consistently enhanced the Canada child tax benefit to help low and middle income families with children. Under action contained in last February's budget, the maximum Canada child tax benefit is now projected to reach $3,243 for the first child in 2007, $3,016 for the second child and $3,020 for each additional child. This will bring the estimated annual support delivered through the child tax benefit to over $10 billion. That is an increase of over 100%, in other words, double since 1996.

I have covered a lot of ground because our record of positive action in the tax arena is extensive and dramatic. Let me conclude by assuring all hon. members and all Canadians that our government remains committed to maintaining, and improving on, a tax system that is fair, efficient and competitive in order to best serve the needs of citizens in every community, rural and urban.

There is a companion commitment that is also part and parcel of a fair, efficient and competitive system, one that we must not lose sight of during debates such as today's debate. That is the absolute importance of ensuring that further changes to the tax system and any action to strengthen our cities in no way jeopardizes our ability to maintain balanced budgets or better.

All of us in the House and every Canadian can remember the painful price that years of deficits exacted. It was paid through high taxes and high interest rates. We shall not and must not let that destructive deficit cycle return to haunt us. That means that any tax change or action we pursue today or in the future must be consistent with fostering a vibrant economy, in particular by ensuring affordability and prudent fiscal planning.

I am sure the hon. member proposing today's motion will agree with those principles completely. We do welcome this debate in order to understand completely how we can develop the partnerships that will build a high level, a legacy, of quality of life for all Canadians.

[Environment, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the issues relating to meteorological services that have been raised in the past in fact have been brought full course with the tremendous results of the preliminary information that was sent out with respect to hurricane Juan.

The meteorological services in fact have been rationalized in order to anticipate changes in weather conditions. The changes that have been referred to by the member will have absolutely no impact whatsoever.

[The Environment, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Adams mine proposal, first of all, there has been no application that has come from the City of Toronto. Second, if there were an environmental assessment, it would be within the context of the Ontario government's environmental assessment. Those would be the provisions that would have to be met.

At this point there is no processing of any application by the city or through the province.

[Hike Canada Week, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to invite all hon. members to participate in the inaugural Hike Canada Week and to encourage participation of others in this fun and fast growing recreational activity.

From October 3 to 12, all across Canada hikers and walkers will be on the trails that link people, places and heritage of Canada, Canada's tremendous system of footpaths winds from the rugged coastline of Newfoundland, across the Bay of Fundy, through the Appalachian and Laurentian Mountains, over the Canadian Shield and the Niagara Escarpment, through the prairie grasslands and across the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean.

Our nation's varied geography, history, environment and cultures are all reflected and showcased through our network of trails. From heritage sites to historic paths and from fishermen to farmers, our trails link Canada and Canadians.

Having more Canadians aware of and connected to their natural heritage and environment through hiking and walking will help produce a population that is healthier, more protective of their environment, more likely to travel within Canada, and more respectful of our mutual heritage as Canadians.

Our government has made a strong commitment to foster the Canadian mosaic and I am pleased to trumpet the efforts--.

[The Environment, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is a case in federal-provincial relations where “You're damned when you do and damned when you don't”.

There was an exhaustive provincial hearing. There were 36 qualifications in the application and that is presently in the hands of the New Brunswick assessment authorities. If they cannot meet the provisions that have been required they will not get a licence to operate the facility. That is where it stands right now.

[The Environment, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the application that has been referred to in Belledune comes under the New Brunswick environmental assessment act.

There is no trigger under section 46, as was pointed out before, that would require any action by the federal department at this time.

We take this very seriously but if there is any further action required it will be reviewed as necessary.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sensitivity that has been raised by the member, but I would like to say that, in addition to the comments that I have outlined, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act anyone wanting to import hazardous waste into Canada is required to obtain a permit from Environment Canada. As such, the department can ensure that Canada is notified of any proposed shipment, prior informed consent is obtained, and the shipment is tracked to its destination.

It is under those provisions that, once the facility is operational, the operators must ensure potential discharges to the environment do not contravene federal statutes such as the Fisheries Act. Environment Canada takes a role in ensuring compliance promotion and enforcement of specific provisions of the Fisheries Act, for example. That is the manner in which the trigger, if it could be called a trigger, would work. That is the law.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to explain to the House and to the hon. member why the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not provide the Minister of the Environment with the authority to intervene in the Bennett environmental incinerator application and project that is proposed for Belledune, New Brunswick.

The proposal, as members are aware, is to construct and operate on lands owned by the Belledune Port Authority, an incinerator for the destruction of soils and solid materials contaminated by creosote and hydrocarbons.

Bennett submitted an application under the New Brunswick environmental assessment process for environmental assessment approval. The Department of the Environment participated on the technical review committee and provided advice to New Brunswick during the provincial environmental assessment process.

Bennett next applied for an authorization to construct and on September 9, 2003, the Government of New Brunswick granted a conditional authorization. Prior to full commercial operation of the facility the company must obtain an authorization to operate the facility from the New Brunswick government. That is the process and that is the law.

The member opposite wishes the Minister of the Environment to intervene in this process and require an environmental assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its regulations.

The act applies to projects, as set out in section 5 of the act, which are subject to specific federal decisions. Officials in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency have investigated the applicability of the act in this case and advised the minister that there are no federal decisions required with respect to this project which would require an assessment under that act. Agency officials have also reviewed the applicability of the act in a transboundary context that the member has raised.

The legislation clearly states that when there is another federal act or regulation that applies to a project, the transboundary provision cannot be used. The Bennett incinerator project requires a permit from the Department of the Environment for the import of dangerous goods and hazardous waste under provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This permit is not listed in the law list regulations and thus is not a trigger for the act. As the permit is required under another federal act and regulation, the transboundary provisions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act cannot be applied to this project. As a consequence, the Minister of the Environment does not have the authority under section 46 of the act to refer the project to a review panel or a mediator.

In summary, there are no Canadian Environmental Assessment Act section 5 decisions in relation to this project and furthermore, as there is a decision required under another act of Parliament, the Minister of the Environment has no jurisdiction under section 46. The Government of Canada, therefore, has no authority to require an environmental assessment of this project.