Bryon Wilfert

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question, but I obviously hit a nerve over there. Let me respond to a couple of points.

First, on infrastructure, the Silverman report, the McGill University and U of T reports and the Auditor General all said that the infrastructure programs were well done, with 99.9% of the projects well funded and well thought out. Opposition members are fudging by saying that they want to ensure they get value for the dollar.

I want that member to go back to his riding and have the decency to talk to his mayors and ask any one of them if they do not think the program has not delivered important projects in their communities. Why is it important? A news flash for my friends across the way. They were not generated by this government. They were generated by the municipalities. They are the ones who made the proposals.

The party across the way, the Conservative, Alliance, has the audacity to stand in the House and mimic the provinces on the 14¢. It is utter nonsense. The party across the way should get it straight on how health care is funded. It is funded through cash and tax points.

If the members do not know, I can given them a little history lesson. The provinces wanted cash and tax points in 1977. Today, with cash and tax points, and if we throw in equalization except for Alberta and Ontario, it is between 30¢ and 40¢ on the dollar. Stop making those outrageous statements--

[The Budget, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the budget.

First, after listening to our Conservative friends across the way, or our “Alliance lite” friends, I want to say they really demonstrate that they are high on rhetoric and very weak when it comes to substance. In fact, I think they demonstrate more than ever why they should never be trusted to form a government.

The Conservatives, the Alliance lite over there, continue on a daily basis to say “spend”. They say to spend billions on this and billions on that with no accountability. Then there are days when they come in and say “cut”. They say to cut this and cut that without really analyzing the impact of those cuts.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is a party, a group, that when it came into office in 1993 inherited a deficit of $42.5 billion. That deficit was because of overspending and lack of accountability. This government came into office and said, “We are going to get the fiscal house of this nation in order”. We know that over the years it took a lot of work, a lot of hard work from Canadians, supportive Canadians, in order to eliminate the national deficit.

We know that the Conservatives really have not improved much since then. Their kissing cousins in Ontario left the incoming government of Ontario with a $5.6 billion deficit, this from a party that said it could in fact reduce taxes, spend less and deliver more. All it delivered in the end was a whopping deficit to Ontarians. The fact is, they could not manage the purse strings, and there is no indication from that party across the way that it has matured enough to be able to do it.

In fact, accountability is what this government has been all about. In fact, when the $42.5 billion deficit was eliminated we said we would not spend and we would not reduce taxes until such time as the fiscal house was in order.

It has almost become routine now, but the finance minister announced last week that this is the seventh consecutive balanced budget or better. There were times, I am sure, when we would have heard the opposition members telling us we were still in deficit. Now that we are at seven balanced budgets or better, we do not hear anything from them. In fact, the silence is deafening. Maybe it is because they do not have the words. They do not know what to say because they are dumbfounded that any government, the only government in the G-7, is able to balance seven years in a row. This is unprecedented in Canadian history. Again, the silence on the other side is deafening.

They are not deaf when it comes to saying spend in this area and cut in that area, but they have no fiscal plan. This government has a fiscal plan. We said we would get our house in order. We have done that with seven balanced budgets or better.

We have listened to Canadians. They said they wanted expenditure controls to make sure that when we spend a dollar we know where that dollar is going. They said to make sure we bring in smart investments. That in fact is what we have been all about.

Reducing the national debt used to be something that the Conservatives, the Alliance lite over there, used to talk about all the time. They do not talk about it anymore and again we hear great silence on the other side. Why? Because we are the only G-7 state paying off the national debt. In fact, we have now hit a target. We have now said we are going to go below 40% of the GDP. It was as high at 71.5% five years ago. Now we have said that the target in 10 years will be 25% of the GDP.

There were times when the other side used to say we did not have a target. Opposition members asked us why we did not have a target for debt reduction. Now we have announced a target for debt reduction and obviously it is too much for them to handle. There is no comment from the other side about the fact that we are now paying off over $52 billion in debt.

What does that mean? Our friends in the NDP say debt reduction is not that important. The NDP believe, I think, that the saving of $3.5 billion in interest payments is extremely important. Why is it important? It is important because social programs in this country can be and are funded because we are saving on interest.

To me, just those two areas alone demonstrate the fiscal management of the government: seven balanced budgets or better and the GDP going down to 25% in 10 years, something that could not even have been visualized 10 years ago and something that they still cannot grasp today, which only goes to prove that if one is a member of the opposition one's CV is very light. The opposition members clearly do not understand economics. They do not understand how to manage budgets. They are good at rhetoric but they are not good when it comes to the delivery of what Canadians want in terms of the fiscal management of Canada. We have delivered.

In fact, they do not have to take my word for it. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said that Canada will do again this year what no other state has done: balance the books or better and pay down the debt. Again, we did this last year, which was a very difficult year: SARS, forest fires in British Columbia, hurricanes in the Maritimes, and the mad cow crisis. Yet because of the prudent fiscal management of the government, we were able to deliver a balanced budget or better for the seventh year in a row.

The fact is that we practice what we preach. We do not go out and spend moneys that we do not have. We again have shown the importance of the contingency reserve, that cushion against unforeseen economic circumstances. That $3 billion is important, and another $1 billion, again so important in terms of being able to set those moneys aside in case there are unforeseen circumstances that buffet the Canadian economy. We were able to respond in spite of all of those challenges of last year and we are still able this year to deliver a balanced budget or better. I think that is an impressive record.

Also impressive, I think, are the prudent investments we have made. Again, we have a resilient economy. We have the support of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which again this year has applauded us for the work we have done in terms of dealing with debt and in terms of balancing the books.

Also, our friends across the way talk about the fact that we did not do enough in this or that area. Simply let me say that having balanced the books and having again reduced the debt, if that is not enough, what else did we do? We made an accord with the provinces. In that accord, we invested over $34 billion and another $2 billion, for over $36 billion, in health. This Prime Minister has said that in this particular case we are prepared to do more; in fact, we are prepared to give a 10 year commitment. But we cannot and will not continue to put in money without structural changes and, as we all know, it is up to the provinces, which administer the health care system, to make those changes.

The Prime Minister has said very clearly that this summer in a first ministers meeting he is prepared to go all the way in terms of making sure that we make those structural changes in cooperation with the provinces and provide the long term funding for 10 years, but the fact is we cannot continue to provide money to the provinces when the accountability is not there. Again, it is very important that there is accountability in terms of where those tax dollars are being spent. It is important to know that when it comes to the health care system the government supports a publicly funded health care system. We are going to continue to support it and we are going to continue to work with the provinces.

Of course our friends across the way, particularly the Conservatives, our Alliance lite friends, would like to see a two tier system. They of course are champions of Mr. Klein. In fact, that is not what Canadians want. They want to know that the system is there today and for the future.

In regard to the long term, we agree with Mr. Romanow, who has said not to put more money into it until there is a substantive agreement on the structural issues. That is what we are going to do. That what the Prime Minister has said he will do, and hopefully--not over lunch, not over dinner, and if it takes three or four days, whatever it takes--it is going to be done and done right.

One of the most interesting attacks we have had from our friends across the way has been on the issue of the urban agenda on the municipal file. It is absolutely unconscionable that the Conservatives, the Alliance lite party, would have this audacity. In fact, I cannot believe that they would even mention this issue since they have never supported this issue. Being a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I know what I am speaking about. I know that they used to say no all the time.

In fact, having been in the House over the last number of years, I remember Bill C-10. Bill C-10 was a bill in which we said we were going to deal with the issue of payments in lieu of taxes. What does that mean? In 1992, the Conservative government did a unilateral tax cut. It said that crown corporations would pay 10% less than private corporations. In theory, we could have had a CTV building and a CBC building in our city and the CBC would have paid 10% less. That was unacceptable. What did we do? The Liberal government worked with the FCM and municipal governments across the country and brought in Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 essentially said that we would pay our taxes on time, and that if there were a dispute it would go through the normal dispute mechanism available to the average taxpayer and we would pay interest if we were late. That party across the way voted against it and voted against it because that party was consistent in that it has never supported cities.

Lately, of course, that party goes on about the gasoline tax. It has discovered the gasoline tax, heaven forbid. These members are the champions of provincial rights and yet the party across the way, our Conservative, Alliance lite friends, ask why we did not bring in a rebate in this budget and assist the municipalities today. It is pretty obvious. Anybody who knows constitutional law knows that under section 92 the provinces are responsible for municipal governments, which are creatures of the provinces. Therefore, we need to get a tripartite agreement. We at least need to get the provinces on board, because we are not going to simply turn over money to the provinces and then say that hopefully it will go to the cities, towns and villages across the country. That will not work.

We have given a solid commitment. The Prime Minister gave a solid commitment that he will in fact work with municipal governments and the provinces in order to ensure that the moneys, either those from the gas tax or a similar amount of money, will go to our cities, towns and villages.

It was this government in 1993 that brought in the national infrastructure program. That party across the way opposed it. Those members are so shallow when it comes to the cities file. It is incredible to suggest for a moment that they are now the champions of the urban agenda in this country.

When it comes to the government, we implemented the national infrastructure program in 1994. Since then, this has been a very important and successful program for cities, towns and villages, over $25 billion of it. The fact is that it has helped the infrastructure in our cities, towns and villages across this country.

Going further, in 1991 when Brian Mulroney brought in the goods and services tax, he wanted municipal governments to pay 100%. The FCM, of which I was a part, said it did not believe that cities should be taxed, simply because the provincial and federal governments did not tax each other. In fact, we came up with an agreement, eventually and reluctantly, for a 57.14% rebate.

What has this government done? The government has now brought in a GST rebate of 100%, something for which municipal governments and municipal leaders have been asking for years. What does that mean? It means a $7 billion saving over a period of 10 years. My own municipality of Richmond Hill is going to save between $500,000 and $1 million a year. That is a significant amount of money, money that Richmond Hill can use for other projects. Again the fact is that the GST rebate is a very important initiative and again we are in consultation with our municipal friends.

We have gone further. We have said we are going to work collaboratively with cities, towns and villages in this country to make sure that if federal legislation comes in that is going to have an impact on them, we are going to have them at the table. We would like to have them at the table with the provinces and with the territories, or we will do it separately if in fact the provinces and territories do not agree.

We are committed to working with our cities because of course they are where 80% of Canadians live. The fact is that on the infrastructure file we had a 10 year program. We now have speeded it up to 5 years. We put aside $1 billion last year, spread out over 5 years instead of 10, because municipal governments of course have their capital works projects and devise 5 year and 10 year programs. This helps to assist them whether they are large or small.

A billion dollars has been invested in affordable housing, which is another important initiative. Even though some provinces have not picked up the ball on that, we will continue to work with our partners to ensure that needed housing is constructed. That is important.

To ensure that there is a strong voice, the Prime Minister has again said that he wants to start those discussions. He has been very open, as was the former prime minister with team Canada missions. Municipal representatives worked with business leaders and the federal government. We have continued to work in collaboration on this city file.

The former premier of British Columbia, a good friend of the NDP, Mr. Harcourt, has been brought on board on an external advisory committee on cities and communities to ensure that concerns of communities are heard. I know my NDP friends would be happy to see that. We do not talk about these issues; we deliver.

Contaminated sites is another important issue with which cities have been dealing. The government in the budget said that it would provide $4 billion over 10 years to do just that. That is very important. There are 3,800 federally controlled contaminated sites. We will respond to that, working in conjunction with municipalities, just as we did with the green enabling fund where we initially put $250 million in, then doubled it because it worked so well, showing a leadership in that regard.

On the issue of immigration and settlement for cities, $15 million annually was allocated there to deal with language training issues, another important incentive. Our friends across the way are silent on these issues because these are good initiatives. These are important things, but they are mired in the politics of cheap rebuttal. They want to talk about scandals. Yet they do not want to look at how this government has responded to expenditures and how we responded effectively.

The government has responded. The opposition is very weak when it comes to substance. It is high on the rhetoric. We are interested in ensuring, in listening to Canadians, that we provide not only a balanced approach, but also ensure that the investments made are made effectively for Canadians.

On taxes, our friends across the way complain. This is the $100 billion tax cuts, the largest in Canadians history. It is the fifth year in a row, and is assistance for small business.

In any event, I know members opposite do not like to hear the truth. I know it bothers them, and I am sure they will all get up ready to make comments which will have very little bearing on the budget.

[Kofi Annan, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Kofi Annan, a Nobel peace prize winner and the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to welcome our esteemed guest to Canada.

Kofi Annan is serving a second term as Secretary-General of the United Nations. This is certainly a reflection of the Secretary-General's deep commitment to revitalizing and reforming the UN.

Mr. Annan has been a strong advocate of human rights, the rule of law, and the universal values of equality, tolerance and human dignity found in the United Nations charter.

As Secretary-General, Kofi Annan has managed several delicate political situations: the transition to civilian rule in Nigeria; an agreement to resolve a stalemate between Libya and the Security Council; forging an international response to the violence in East Timor; the certification of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon; and further efforts to encourage Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiations.

Congratulations on your achievements, and welcome to Canada, Mr. Secretary-General.

[Contraventions Act, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue today particularly because we have heard a lot in the House about taking action on various issues. It is regrettable that opposition members talk about taking action but are not prepared to do anything.

When it comes to the reinstatement of government bills, there is a time honoured tradition in the House and in Great Britain with regard to reinstatement. I do not hear any alternatives from that side of the House. If we do not reinstate these bills, what does the opposition propose?

We have debated, examined and reviewed a number of bills that are at various stages. We are asking, as the government, to reinstated them so we may continue in the public interest. The public interest is not served by the delay tactics of the opposition. The public interest is not served by the opposition pretending concern about the state of the issues, whether they are environmental or public safety issues or whether it is about democratic reform.

At the same time those members do not want to act because they would rather play politics. They would rather not look at the fact that since 1970, 1972 and 1986, it has occurred in the House. Maybe the opposition has a lot more time on its hands than we on this side of the House have but when something is examined and reviewed it is brought back to the current state in which it was left in order to proceed. I assume that part of the objective would be to hopefully complete the legislation and move forward. That would be in the public interest.

The public interest is not served by delay and it is not served by politicking or continuous chatter. It is only served when we take action and move forward on legislation in which all of us have been involved.

All of us have been involved in the various bills that are now being asked to be reinstated before the House. Unfortunately we have members across the way who are suggesting that we do not need to do this but they offer no alternative. It is very easy to criticize but, unfortunately, they are not prepared to act.

One of the things that we have talked about is that we have tabled an new action plan for democratic reform. However apparently it only is supposed to work on this side of the House and not on that side. We on this side of the House want free votes but I have never seen, in all the years I have been here, free votes on that side. On that side they always vote together. Why? It is because their objective is to defeat the government.

They are not interested in true reform. If they were interested in true reform they would loosen their own whips and allow the kind of votes that need to take place.

However, that is one of the reforms that has been tabled in the House. We hear a lot of rhetoric from that side but we have not seen any action.

What is the process of government? Bills are introduced in the House and once they pass second reading they go to committee. Many of the standing committees have reviewed legislation. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries have appeared before those committees. Members have debated the issues. Canadians are saying that they want to see certain legislation go through but the people on the other side would rather delay.

I find it incomprehensible to understand why they would want to delay legislation that is extremely important for Canadians, such as animal cruelty? Why would they want to delay that bill? More than one member in the House has received calls on the issue of animal cruelty, on Bill C-10B. No, we would rather have this whole thing start from scratch, because that is the only alternative. It is utter nonsense to suggest that we review something we have already reviewed.

As a former teacher, I do not think it is very productive to do that. Some teachers might want someone to write lines on the board 100 times but that is not very productive. I would rather use the time more effectively. I am sure there are colleagues on the other side who would like to be more effective than simply rewriting what we have already done.

I know some of my colleagues across the way work very co-operatively when it comes to getting bills through the House and making sure we deal with the information but we have some who would rather delay. Why do they want to delay? It is because they have no other suggestions and no alternatives. They want to start from square one.

The particular motion before the House is to restore the role of parliamentarians. It is for parliamentarians to examine legislation carefully. This is not a time limit where we are going to suddenly say that the bill has to be passed tomorrow. However we cannot deal with the legislation if we cannot move forward. At the moment we cannot move forward because some members have said that they do not want any action whatsoever.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand that they want the House of Commons to be effective, to move forward and to have democratic reform when on the other hand they would rather stay pat and not do anything. I do not know what we would be doing but according to them they want nothing done.

The interests of Canadians are not being served by simply doing nothing. The public interest is only served when we are working and when we are working effectively on legislation that we have been dealing with.

What is the issue? The issue from our side is that we want to reinstate legislation, something that has been done many times in the past, as I have said, namely the bills that were examined before Parliament was prorogued in November. This is very simple and it has been done many times before.

I am sure there are bills that members on the other side of the House are concerned about. Whether they support them or not, I think they need to be debated and they need to have a public hearings but his cannot be done if we simply freeze everything and say that we are not going to do everything because we would rather debate procedure, rather than debate the real issues.

We cannot get royal assent on a bill if we cannot get it back on the Order Paper and it dies. We do not want it to die. The Canadian public wants bills to be adopted and they cannot be adopted if we are going to reinvent the wheel, which seems to be the approach.

We will not start at zero. We will not give the same speeches or go through the same witnesses. We will not go through the same examination. It has been done and, I am sure, very thoroughly by the standing committees responsible for various pieces of legislation.

It is clear that because the committees will be established that in this case we will not be very productive if there are some bills that have been sitting around because of amendments that have not been dealt with that Canadians are saying let us move forward on, and yet we are more concerned in some quarters in the House with dealing with the issue of whether or not the government should be able to bring in closure. In fact, in Great Britain closure is automatic on every bill.

I hear about democracy. Some of the people on the other side really send me when they talk about democracy, when in fact they use the most anti-democratic means possible to hold up legislation. They say that they support free votes but do not ask them to apply free votes. Some members in certain quarters over there do not practice what in fact they preach. It is a bit hypocritical to suggest otherwise.

Of course none of this has escaped notice on this side of the House that parliamentarians are interested in getting work done. If at the end of the day a committee decides not to pass legislation, that is the will of the committee, but a committee cannot act if it is not constituted and it cannot be constituted unless we move forward. That is what we are prepared to do on this side of the House.

I think we all have much better things to do. Unfortunately, today we are taking up the entire day talking about whether we should reinstate bills. This is a waste of the taxpayer dollars. People on that side of the House, particularly those in the Conservative Party, always talk about whether money is well used. I think it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars to talk about whether we should move forward on legislation that has already been before parliamentarians. I would certainly commend the fact that we move forward as expeditiously as possible.

As the House knows, this proposal would allow ministers, within 30 days after the start of the session and after the motion is adopted, to apply to the Speaker for permission to reinstate bills from the previous session. That, in fact, is what we are trying to do.

As members know, when the last session ended we brought forward a motion to simply say that we wanted to reinstate bills, as was done before, and that we would do it in in a way that would not come as any surprise to my colleagues, either on this side or the other side of the House.

However it is not new. Perhaps some of the members on the other side were asleep, but it clearly has been a procedure that has been done many times. It was done in 1970, 1972, 1986 and 1991. In fact it is something that is there and it gives us the opportunity to deal with very legitimate legislation. Even in October 1999, the House adopted a similar motion to the one before us today.

Clearly the proposed motion is similar to the Standing Orders that allow private members' bills to be reintroduced following prorogation. I know dealing with the issues of private members is of concern to members on this side of the House and I am sure to my colleagues on the other side of the House.

What we are dealing with today is nothing new. It is nothing radical. It is nothing surprising. It is simply trying to get the business of the nation moving forward, and we cannot do that with the delaying tactics from the other side.

We need to get on with it. We need to ensure that legislation moves forward. As to what the result will be, that is up to the committee and ultimately to the House. However, we cannot do it if we cannot start immediately.

There has been derogatory comments made on the other side, for example, on Bill C-49 which sees the enhancement of the democratic character of our nation by having new boundaries. Clearly, some of the members on the other side would rather us have boundaries which reflect population changes which have not been seen in 10 years.

I come from a riding that is the second or third largest in Canada by population; close to 200,000. I think it reflects the fact that in a fast growing community, such as mine, need to have these changes. It may be all right for some members on the other side, but the reality is that we want to be up to date.

We believe these changes are important and Canadians have said they are important. If we are to have a census and we do not take action on what the census has told us, why have a census? If we are to truly represent British Columbia, which will get two new seats, or Alberta with two seats or Ontario with three seats, we have to be much more responsive. As I say, we will simply respond to what the census has told us.

Bill C-34 deals with an independent ethics commissioner reporting to the House of Commons. Who could argue against that? Again, this is something Canadians have said they want to see. It is something we said we are prepared to act on quickly. Yet every day we hear the other side complaining about why the ethics counsellor is not reporting directly to Parliament. We have a bill that will do just that and the opposition members are still complaining.

I do not understand for the life of me how they think they can have it both ways. Either they want an ethics commissioner who is independent, who reports to the House and they are prepared to vote on it and move forward, or they are not. They cannot simply say one thing and do another, although some of them obviously have Ph.Ds in that regard because they have mastered this to such a degree that they say one thing and do another.

As the former parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, I remember that. On one day members of the opposition would say that we should spend $2 billion. The next day they would say that we would have to cut $3 billion. Only Harry Houdini could probably do that. However, the reality is that we had to balance the books on this side and we could not take, and thank goodness we did not take, the advice of some of my colleagues on the other side.

There is the issue of public safety. We have the public safety act of 2002 and amendments to the Criminal Code. Some of our friends in the Conservative Party continually talk about the Criminal Code. Who could argue against protecting children and other vulnerable groups of people, which is the public safety act? Apparently some members can because they do not want this legislation to go forward.

To me the protection of children is paramount. Why we would even waste any time wanting to debate whether that bill should go forward? It is disgraceful to suggest that the protection of children should take second place to the procedural wrangling of the opposition. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

The Westbank First Nation self-government act is another example. Again, that has been debated and discussed, and the opposition would rather drag its feet.

We want to ensure clean water, a good environment and a strong health care system, issues that really need to be debated in the House. They need to be debated in committee. Unfortunately, the opposition is more interested in procedural wrangling.

I would suggest that the time has come to move forward. The time has come to put people first and to put the workings of this Parliament ahead of the politics across the way. If the members opposite do not support the legislation, fine. However, unless we have the debate on that legislation, we will be unable to do the business of the nation. We cannot do the business of the nation under the current situation.

As I said before, even Great Britain, which of course we model ourselves after, has closure. The opposition uses the word closure as if somehow it is a dirty word. That is done for every bill in England. The parliamentarians have a discussion on one day, then they move on. Here, we talk about different issues. Sometimes a long discussion is good. Unfortunately, the group on the other side is only interested in dragging its feet. It is not interested in dealing with the nation's business. Whether it is cruelty to animals, or protection of children, other than concern, these are hardly issues which I would think there would be much to say about. Let us put those things first and move forward.

Unfortunately, we continue to have to do this once in a while, and it is regrettable. However, we do not have the support of our colleagues on the other side because they play politics. I know they are obviously concerned about other things, but we are not afraid on this side of the House to talk about the issues. We are not afraid on this side of the House to deal with the issues. We are not afraid on this side of the House to let the chips fall where they may. However, we cannot do it if we are going to spend hours and hours wrangling over whether we can move forward with legislation, which every member in this House has been involved in, whether it has been examining or discussing it in the committee.

Let us move forward and let us get on with the business of the nation.

[Gerald Bouey, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are saddened today to learn of the passing of Mr. Gerald Bouey, who was the Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1973 to 1987.

I would like my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest regrets to his wife, Anne, and his children, Kathryn and Robert.

On many issues, history proved Mr. Bouey right. While at the helm of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey warned of the dangers associated with government deficits. He also believed in the necessity of having an anti-inflation policy at the Bank of Canada. For a few years already, this government has followed Mr. Bouey's advice.

Mr. Bouey once said, “It's not the bank's job to be popular”. These are the words of a man of principle who was not afraid to tackle difficult problems head-on.

Let us pay tribute to the memory of Gerald Bouey.

[Radiocommunication Act, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague across the way with regard to Bill C-2. I believe the issue here is one of preventing the erosion of the Canadian broadcasting system.

In 1936 the Conservatives, under former Prime Minister R. B. Bennett, established the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Why? Because of the impact of American feed coming into Canada: American radio, American magazines, et cetera. American thinking was obviously different than Canadian but it had a tremendous cultural effect on Canadians.

In order to have a Canadian voice and a Canadian view of our society, R. B. Bennett established the CBC. Obviously the establishment of the CBC has been extremely important as a cultural medium for Canadian actors, entertainers, writers, producers, directors, et cetera.

Bill C-2, an act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, is very timely and important given the situation we have. Section 9(1)(c) of the current act sets out a prohibition on the unauthorized decoding of encrypted subscription programming signals. Section 9(1)(d) prohibits unauthorized reception of unlawfully decoded subscription programming signals using radio equipment.

When we look at Bill C-2 we see that the transmission to the public of unlawfully decoded subscription programming signals has become a very important issue in the last few years. Section 10(1)(b) of the act makes it an offence to contravene section 9(1)(c) through activities such as importing, selling, distributing or possessing equipment in circumstances where it is reasonable to infer that the equipment is or was intended to be used for the purposes of contravention of that section.

The member across the way talked about what he did not like about the bill but I did not really hear his solution other than to work with the United States. I believe we must have a made in Canada solution, one which we have been working with the stakeholders on. Until last year there was really little effort to crack down on these direct to home satellite TVs or, as they are known, DTH piracy. There was no unanimity among the courts in this country whether unauthorized decoding of signals did indeed contravene the Radiocommunication Act.

As a result, there was a lack of court penalties against signal piracy. The RCMP's enforcement activities virtually came to a halt. As a result, black market dealers began to open and advertise their products.

In April 2002 the Supreme Court clarified the legal uncertainty. It determined that the unauthorized decoding of any encrypted subscription programming was illegal, period. Furthermore, it determined that reception of encrypted broadcasting programming must be authorized by a lawful distributor in this country, usually the Canadian DTH broadcaster.

Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that subject to a very narrow exception, there was absolute prohibition on the decoding of encrypted broadcast programming from foreign distributors.

Once the law was clarified, the RCMP and customs significantly stepped up their enforcement activities. The member across the way talked about enforcement and compared it to guns and all sorts of other things. The fact is that the RCMP has developed an outreach strategy to provide provincial detachments with information on this issue. It is training its personnel to deal with enforcement.

In fact, a series of RCMP raids on black market dealers has resulted in several high profile seizures of illegal DTH equipment. However the fines imposed in recent judgments do not really impose much of a deterrent. This is very important. The current fines can be regarded by an illegal DTH dealer simply as the cost of doing business. I do not think anyone in the chamber wants to see that continue.

The House is well aware that the RCMP has many security and law enforcement priorities. We must ask ourselves whether it is a worthwhile use of time and resources to step up activities against illegal satellite pirates when there is little indication that prosecution will deter the piracy.

For that reason we must make sure that the punishment fits the crime, and this means increasing the penalties. That is the thrust of the bill. Although a higher level of fines in the act will not necessarily guarantee that the courts will impose stiffer penalties on dealers, it will send a strong message to the courts that Parliament sees this as an important issue.

The penalties contained in the bill are intended to send those messages. The maximum penalties for specified offences under section 10 have been increased from $5,000 to $25,000 or one year imprisonment or both for individuals; from $25,000 to $200,000 for corporations in the case of subsections 10(1) and 10(2.1).

Under subsection 10(2) the penalty has been increased from $5,000 to $10,000 for persons. Under subsection 10 (2.2) the penalty has increased for individuals from $20,000 to $50,000 or two years imprisonment or both; and for corporations from $200,000 to $500,000. Those are strong messages both to the illegal operators who are selling this equipment, the general public and the courts.

The bill also gives the Canada Border Services Agency an important tool. Although the Radiocommunication Act prohibits the importation of illegal receivers, equipment continues to flow across the border, as the hon. member across the way mentioned. Therefore it is difficult for customs to determine which imported equipment may be used for illegal purposes and which will not.

The bill would provide for better control at the border. I agree with the member that we need to deal with that issue at the border. The bill would do that by requiring an important certificate issued by the Minister of Industry for anyone wishing to bring satellite decoding equipment into Canada.

Finally, the bill would give the broadcast industry the tools it requires to protect its interests through civil action. Over the past five years Bell ExpressVu has launched nine civil actions against key dealers in the country. One of these actions resulted in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of April 2002, as I mentioned, that clarified the legal uncertainties.

However the broadcast industry finds the pursuit of civil remedies under the current provisions to be costly and ineffective. It is difficult to prove a direct causal link between the illegal conduct of DTH pirate satellite dealers and the actual losses the broadcasters suffer. To reinforce their efforts to pursue civil action, the bill provides an option to seek statutorily prescribed damages rather than being forced to prove actual damages.

The bill includes three important provisions that would deter signal piracy in Canada. It provides tools for each of the three partners to enforce the existing law: the RCMP, whose efforts will be backed by stronger penalties; the customs officials, who will be able to stop illegal equipment at the border; and the broadcast industry, who will be supported by the option of statutory damages should it pursue civil action.

This is a good bill that would result in stronger cultural industries in Canada and use of the radio telecommunications spectrum that promotes safety and security.

I believe the bill reinforces and builds on the existing law in Canada. It is important for Canadians. I would urge members of the House to support the legislation.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the predecessors of the new Conservative Alliance, the Conservative Party of Canada under Mr. Mulroney had an option in 1991. The option was to give 100% rebate on the GST so there would have been no tax in 1991. In fact, it wanted to impose the 100%. Fortunately, through the FCM, we were able to negotiate the 57.14% rebate.

As to the issue of property taxes, it is the most outdated form of taxation I have every heard of. They do not reflect the reality of service provided today. Unfortunately, the issue of assessment in dealing with property taxes, certainly in the province of Ontario, is provincial. I will not try to explain any rule or rationale with regard to property taxes because they do not make a lot of sense. They are certainly outdated, which is why the government has taken such a proactive role in assisting communities large and small across the country.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and for his question.

One of the things that is extremely important about this 100% rebate is that it is very visible. It is accountable and transparent because municipal governments buy all sorts of goods and services where there is a GST implication.

The fact is that they will be able to determine and demonstrate clearly the savings to their communities. Whether it is a small community in my riding, such as Whitchurch-Stouffville, which will save moneys in the range of $20,000, or a city like Richmond Hill, which will save millions of dollars.

We can demonstrate that and do it in that manner. Municipal politicians for years have been saying they are an order of government and should be treated as such. One of the ways is not to tax one order of government to another. That is very important.

As the member well knows, because of his own work in his community, there is a role for the national infrastructure program. The FCM called for a national 10 year program for years and the government delivered. Again, an initial down payment of $1 billion and of course we have the strategic infrastructure fund as well.

We are engaged with, not supplanting, the municipal governments. We recognize that, the Constitution notwithstanding, we have a responsibility. The Prime Minister has been so articulate and so clear on this particular issue, recognizing that we have an important collaborative role.

Let us make sure that whether it is Collingwood in the member's riding, Richmond Hill in my riding or wherever it is across the country, we engage those communities. We must engage them because if we make laws which will negatively impact, financially for example, a city, it needs to be at the table to be part of the discussions.

It does not mean we supplant the role and the jurisdictional issues with regard to provinces, but if somebody were to make a law which would impact positively or negatively on a society, the cities need to be part of the process. We do that in our own communities. We talk to our constituents, we hold public forums and we engage them. Why would we not do the same with cities?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to comment on the Speech from the Throne.

First, I would like to note that the Prime Minister clearly outlined a vision that Canadians can clearly understand: a compassionate society that invests in young people and technology and at the same time keeps the books balanced, which is very important.

I found it odd that before the Speech from the Throne was read critics on the other side were already denouncing it before it had actually been released. That kind of clairvoyance is something that is rather new. The Super 7 draw is on Friday at $32.5 million. If they could tell us the numbers in advance, I think we would all benefit because they clearly already said there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne in fact is not a detailed document. It obviously gives a broad brush to outline the direction that the government wants to take in the next few years. I point out that there were a number of key elements in it.

The first one clearly is on the issue of not going into a deficit, to ensure that whatever plans move forward they are done in a fiscally responsible manner. Canadians expect no less, demand no less and the government has a proven track record when it comes to strong fiscal management. It is important again, with six balanced budgets or better, in terms of paying down the national debt. It is important that when we invest, we do so responsibly.

Some people will argue that we are not back to 1993 levels in some areas. The fact is, if we look back at the financing in 1993, a third of it was borrowed money. We can now say with strict confidence that the moneys that are being allocated and spent are moneys that we have in the bank, and we are not borrowing.

A lot has been said about municipal governments and the new deal. I have many years in municipal politics as the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I was around at the time arguing for a 100% rebate on the goods and services tax. In 1991 the Conservative government of the day agreed to a 57.14% rebate. I am of the view that municipal governments are like no other governments. It is a government and therefore it should not be taxed, provincial governments to federal and federal to provincial, and the same with municipal.

The Prime Minister announced that a 100% rebate would now be applied. It is estimated to be $7 billion over 10 years. It is a significant infusion and is something that we as a government can do to assist in terms of transit, affordable housing, et cetera.

The point is municipal governments are still, under the constitution, creatures of the provinces. It is important to note that when we had legislation in the House a few years ago on Bill C-10 to ensure that we had timely payments as a federal government to municipal governments in this country, our friends over there, the johnny-come-latelies on the issue of municipal governments in Canada, opposed the national infrastructure in the 1993 program and opposed the issue of payments in lieu of taxes . Now they say we are not doing enough.

It is always easy for the opposition to say that we are not doing enough because one day they want the government to spend $3 billion, the next day they want it to cut $3 billion. The difficulty is it has to be done in partnership and in a responsible manner. The Prime Minister clearly has understood the needs of communities, large and small, and is prepared to work with them.

The issue I think is one of empowerment , so I am very pleased to see the Prime Minister in this Speech from the Throne address those issues and address them because we know that people, whether they live in small communities or large, need to have the proper environment. They need clean water and road systems. We have to ensure we are investing in the people in those communities.

The response of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the mayors is significant. In fact Mayor Miller of Toronto said that it fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between cities and the federal and provincial governments forever. He said that it was a complete sea change, a breakthrough.

These are people who deal with the day to day issues in their communities. We realize that we cannot supplant the provinces, but we can work in conjunction with provinces, territories and municipal governments.

That is a fundamental recognition because 80% of the people in the country live in urban areas. That was obviously not the case in 1867 when we had about 6%. We have recognized that and are moving forward.

Regarding the issue of empowerment, colleagues across the way often talk about the fiscal imbalance in the country, which is a myth. Provinces have the ability to tax even more so than the federal government. When this government was in a situation where we had a $42.5 billion deficit, we never heard the words “fiscal imbalance” emanate from that side of the House or from the provinces. Now with a much better fiscal situation in Canada, we now suddenly have this fiscal imbalance.

We have to also note in the Speech from the Throne the issue about investing in our social foundations. What could be better than to again provide an additional $2 billion in the area of health care?

The Prime Minister has said we have to deal with the issue of waiting time for elective surgery, et cetera. However, the administration of the health care system is provincial and again we have to have accountability. We have to know that through the health care council Canadians want to know where their moneys are going and want to be able to track that money. Not the federal government, but Canadians need to know. Obviously if money is transferred, it is important because every time we make these agreements, the provinces then come back a few months later and say they need more. As the national roundtable on health concluded a number of years ago, it is not simply about money. It is about how the dollars are utilized. That is extremely important.

The Speech from the Throne talks about R and D investments. Nothing could be more important than ensuring that Canada is on the leading edge of research and development. Again, picking up on the innovation agenda, which we have been working on for the last few years, it is important to ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to do that type of research and development and that the opportunities are there whether they are medical or environmental in terms of R and D in particular.

I am very pleased to see that. I am also pleased because it demonstrates clearly to Canadians the social conscience of this government. It demonstrates that we can do things both in a fiscally responsible manner, but also ensure that there is an investment in families and children and that the Canadian population will benefit because of that.

Also, we have enunciated clearly in the Speech from the Throne our responsibility on the global stage. Again, I applaud the Prime Minister for the invitation to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations to come here. We are a nation that believes in a multilateral approach. We are a nation that has taken on our responsibilities. If we go back to the great war or World War II, volunteers went overseas because they believed in the cause for which they were fighting. We have always responded to our international commitments.

We continue to do that today through our peacekeeping forces around the world. We respond through agencies such as the Canadian International Development Agency. That is important and our response on the issue of HIV-AIDS and the issue of generic drugs. Again, proceeding with that legislation is so important. It shows that we are not simply concerned about our own national interest, but also our responsibility on the world stage. That again outlines the type of compassionate society that Canadians want and expect us to lead as a national government.