Bryon Wilfert

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think some of the flowers they picked were obviously dead. In any event, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill.

The bill would implement several measures of the 2001 budget. As hon. members will recall, the 2001 budget was introduced after the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11 in the United States.

While the budget builds on the government's long term plan for a stronger economy and a more secure society, it also addresses the immediate economic and security concerns of Canadians as a result of those events.

The government initially responded, and swiftly I might add, to the events of September 11 with legislation that takes aim at terrorism and enhances Canada's ability to identify, prosecute and punish terrorists, and measures to cut off sources of financing for terrorists.

The 2001 budget builds on these initiatives through a comprehensive set of security measures designed to keep Canadians safe, terrorists out and our borders open. It provides $7.7 billion over the next five years to enhance security for Canadians and make Canadian borders more secure, open and efficient.

Included in this amount is $2.2 billion in funding for air security and the creation of the Canadian air transport security authority which will deliver enhanced security services at airports and on board flights according to rigorous new national standards set up by Transport Canada.

Established under Bill C-49, the new authority is to be responsible for the certification of screening personnel and for providing pre-board screening of passengers and baggage, armed police on board aircraft and the acquisition and operation of screening equipment, including that used in searching for explosives.

An air travellers security charge that comes into effect April 1, 2002, will fund these new security expenditures. The charge will be paid by air travellers, the primary beneficiaries of these enhanced security measures, and will be collected by air carriers or their agents when airline tickets are purchased.

For travel in Canada, the charge will apply to flights connecting airports where the air transport security authority will be responsible for passenger screening. The charge on domestic travel will be $12 for a one way trip and $24 for a round trip.

The charge on a ticket to the continental U.S. will also be $12 and $24 for travel outside Canada in the continental U.S.

All proceeds from the charge will be used to fund the enhanced air travel security system and, if revenues exceed costs over time, the charge will be reduced. The government, as the minister has indicated repeatedly in the House, will review the charge in the fall.

This enhanced security system will assure air travellers that Canada's air transportation system remains one of the safest and most secure in the world.

Along with addressing the immediate security concerns of Canadians, the 2001 budget also addresses immediate needs through targeted investments designed to boost the confidence in the economy in a fiscally affordable way.

By investing in strategic infrastructure, skills, learning, research, health, aboriginal children, the environment and international assistance, the 2001 budget reflects the government's long term plan while providing important support now for the economy

One way in which the budget achieves this is through the Canada strategic infrastructure fund which would be implemented through Bill C-49.

The modern economy of the 21st century requires a backbone of sound fiscal infrastructure to sustain the nation's growth and our quality of life.

Previous budgets allocated funding to improve provincial and municipal infrastructure. The 2000 budget, for example, introduced both the infrastructure Canada program and the strategic highway infrastructure program.

The government recognizes the need for additional support for large strategic infrastructure projects which can bring lasting economic and social benefits while providing both stimulus and long term productivity benefits. To address this need and to implement other federal infrastructure initiatives, the government is creating the Canada strategic infrastructure fund with a minimum federal contribution of $2 billion in funding.

Working with provincial and municipal governments and the private sector, the fund will provide assistance for large infrastructure projects in areas like highways and rail, local transportation, tourism, urban development, and water and sewage treatment.

A moment ago I mentioned international assistance as one of the strategic investments in the 2001 budget. Canadians have not lost sight of their obligations to help less fortunate peoples of the world. At the G-8 summit in Genoa last July, African leaders presented their proposal for a new partnership for Africa's development and the G-8 leaders pledged to support this initiative.

Since then the Prime Minister has restated his commitment that the development in Africa will be one of the main themes in the G-8 summit that Canada will host in June in Kananaskis. In recognition of this commitment, the 2001 budget announced $500 million over three years for African development to help implement these objectives.

The new Canada fund for Africa, which would be created through Bill C-49, will establish a government program to provide funding for activities that will help reduce poverty, provide primary education and set Africa on a sustainable path to a brighter future.

The government is committed to providing every opportunity for Canadians to upgrade their skills. Whether through the education system, through on job training or through universities and other centres of advanced research, the government has long recognized the value of investing in people.

That is why we introduced the Canadian opportunities strategy in the 1998 budget. The 2001 budget further encourages the acquisition of skills and learning by Canadians.

For example, Bill C-49 provides tax assistance to help apprentice vehicle mechanics registered in a provincial program cope with extraordinary tool costs. Beginning in 2002, they would be able to deduct for income tax purposes the cost of buying new tools to the extent that these costs in a year exceed the greater of $1,000 and 5% of their apprenticeship income.

Another measure provides tax relief for adult students who receive government assistance for basic education at the primary or secondary school level. Bill C-49 exempts from income tax any tuition assistance for adult basic education provided under certain government programs, including employment insurance.

The bill also helps more students undertake lifelong learning by extending the education tax credit for people who receive taxable assistance for post-secondary education under certain government programs, including EI.

As hon. members know, the quality of life of Canadians is closely tied to preserving and improving our natural environment. The 2001 budget includes new spending and tax measures intended to ensure continued progress toward a cleaner and healthier environment.

One of these measures is included in Bill C-49 and concerns commercial woodlot owners who can currently be subject to income tax when transferring woodlots to their children. As a result, woodlots may have to be harvested prematurely to generate the revenues required to pay the tax on the transfer, which can be detrimental to the sound management of this resource.

Bill C-49 extends the existing intergenerational tax deferred rollover for farm property to intergenerational transfers of woodlot operations that are farming businesses managed in accordance with the prescribed forest management plan.

I should mention too that the budget initiatives with respect to renewable energy and energy efficiency are being implemented through the amendments to the income tax regulations which have already been released in draft form.

The 2001 budget also contained a number of other tax measures, all of which are designed to improve fairness in the tax system. The bill makes permanent the 1997 budget measure that provides special tax assistance for donations of certain securities to public charities, and the 2000 budget measure that reduces the tax on employment benefits for donations of eligible securities acquired through stock option plans.

Another measure improves the system for providing GST credits. Beginning in July 2002, GST credit entitlements for a quarter will be based on the individual's family circumstances at the end of the preceding quarter not at the end of the previous calendar year.

To provide a cash flow benefit for small businesses the federal corporate tax installment payments for January, February and March, 2002 would be deferred for at least six months without penalty. To make it easier for foreign investors to use limited partnerships in structuring venture capital investments, Bill C-49 would ensure their non-resident partners were not considered to be carrying on business in Canada solely because investment management or administrative services were provided by Canadian residents. The final tax measure would allow full deductibility for the cost of meals provided to employees at construction work camps where the employees could be expected to return home each day.

A remaining measure relates to improved parental benefits under the Employment Insurance program. The current 50 week cap on the combined amount of sickness, maternity and parental benefits an individual can receive under EI means women who become ill may not have full access to extended benefits. To enable a mother to receive her full entitlement to special benefits, effective March 3, 2002 the cap would increase by one week for each week of sickness benefits she took while pregnant or while receiving parental benefits. A second EI measure would improve on the parental benefits that could be claimed following the birth or adoption of a child. It would provide parents a window of up to two years within which they could claim.

I have given members a brief overview of some of the key measures of Bill C-49. I remind the House that the events of September 11 have not changed the government's fiscal resolve.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the 2001 budget builds on the government's long term plan for a stronger economy and more secure society. It also responds to the short term concerns of Canadians. We will continue to invest in people, cut taxes, reduce debt and build a stronger economy. Above all, we will continue to pursue our long term plan to invest in the future without going back into deficit.

I will conclude by paraphrasing the Minister of Finance who said the 2001 budget was about dealing with the present so we could seize the future. The measures of Bill C-49 would help us achieve that. I urge hon. members to pass Bill C-49.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member across the way outlined all sorts of issues, he failed to mention a few.

I would like to point out that we are the only G-7 state that is balancing its books. This year we are paying down the national debt. We have paid $36 billion over the last four years on the national debt. We have had five consecutive budgets in a row in terms of balancing the books. We have a stimulus package and a tax package that will be greater than that in the United States given the size of our economy, and it is front end loaded. We have ended 28 years of deficit. Those are the things the member did not point out.

I would also point out that under the strategic funding initiatives, $9 billion this year, $11 billion next year and $7.7 billion over five years will go toward enhancing personal economic security for Canadians. We will spend $2 billion on strategic infrastructure projects and $1.1 billion over three years to support skills and learning.

I would also point out that personal income taxes are down. I am sure my colleague did not deliberately neglect these facts but that he simply overlooked them.

It would seem that the member on the other side is not the best in terms of listening sometimes even though we were attentive to our colleague across the way.

The member might want to comment on the fact that in terms of our party's record on the economy, it is much better than when his party was in power. Maybe he would like to comment on the fiscal situation that we inherited and how we have built upon that since 1993.

[Question No.100—, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot about democracy in the House, unfortunately when the opposition members vote together they consider that democratic but when we vote together, apparently it is whipped, which unfortunately is a misrepresentation.

I cannot believe some of the comments I have heard from the other side. It is very disappointing to hear some of the comments given that some of these members, when things are explained to them, turn around and say things which they know are incorrect. Nevertheless, some of the members seem to have a really good grasp of the finance committee, even though they have never attended it.

I would like to comment particularly on Motion No. 10 which deals with the issue of aerodromes north of the 55th parallel and how they would be served.

In the committee, we responded by saying that the listed airports, those airports that are planned by Transport Canada to benefit directly from security enhancements under the new authority, would be in place. All these airports currently have pre-board screening practices that would be continued and enhanced under this authority. Therefore, for travel in Canada, the charge would apply to flights between the listed airports. Direct flights to or from small and remote airports that are not listed airports will of course not be subject to the charge. Further, this would reduce considerably the incidents of the charge in remote areas in the country.

The list of airports will be reviewed, as has been said many times in the House, on an ongoing basis and, if necessary, revised to reflect any changes in the provision of security in those airports.

Further, on Motion No. 17, the charge will fund enhanced air travel security, which I believe is the goal of all members of the House. This would be based on national standards developed by Transport Canada and applied to the new air transport authority. This is extremely important.

Transport Canada has recently established security responsibilities and determined where and how the security will be enhanced.

The charge will not apply at airports where the government will not be providing enhanced security. Not applying the charge in respect of flights to and from portions of the listed airports that may not have screening services would raise, obviously, two difficulties.

First, it would be administratively complex and perhaps unworkable to identify each separate circumstance in which the charge would not apply at a particular time for a particular listed airport.

Second, it would create a cost advantage to operate flights from unsecured portions of listed airports that would be inconsistent with the key goal of enhancing air travel security. I am sure my friends on the other side do not want to see that as they are always talking about their concern for the dollar. They are all concerned about the issue of security and yet they, by their actions, would in fact put the public at peril by not supporting the notion of the type of security measures that are being implemented.

Further, the legislation already provides the authority to the Minister of Revenue to waive all or part of any interest on penalties otherwise payable on late or deficient payments. This was an issue that was raised at the committee. If the minister considers it reasonable to do so, then the minister will take the appropriate action.

This ministerial authority is consistent with the authority provided under the tax statute, such as the goods and services tax legislation, and the income tax legislation.

The authority would be expected to be exercised by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in its administration of the charge in the same fair and reasonable manner as exercised in relation to other statutes.

Finally, the budget sets out a fiscal track for funding the enhanced security expenditures by way of the air travellers security charge, which entails a total budgetary commitment of $2.2 billion over a five year period. The integrity of that fiscal framework is dependent on the charge going into effect April 1, 2002.

The air travel industry which consists of air carriers and travel agents across the country and abroad needs certainty as to when it would need to begin collecting the charge. It is gearing up to collect it as of April 1, 2002.

Projected revenues from the charge in the first two years are lower than projected expenditures. It is only in 2004-05 that annual revenue is projected to exceed annual costs. The air travel industry must buy the appropriate equipment and put it in place, so expenditures would go higher than revenues initially. Only by 2004-05 would it make up for the earlier shortfalls.

The government is committed to an open and transparent process. It was said time and again at the committee that the charge must be reviewed annually. The Minister of Finance is on record on repeated occasions in the House as saying he would review the charge to ensure revenue over the five year period did not exceed the costs of the enhanced air traffic travel security system.

However members on the other side of the House only seem to hear what they find convenient, and they are not prepared to hear the views of the committee. A number of times they were not even at the committee. They did not seem to feel they received a positive response to the issues they raised so they took their marbles and went home.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day we are responsible for the security of Canadians. We want to make sure air travellers are secure. We want to make sure the costs are partly borne by the consumer. That approach has been taken. I would hope the majority of members of the House support that approach.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, if you would seek it, I am sure you would find that there is consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. in order to begin private members' business.

[Supply, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the motion tabled by the New Democratic Party urging the government to reflect on the budgetary policies as put forth in a 12 point plan.

First, I would like to mention that the concern about Canadian sovereignty is not confined simply to that side of the aisle, and particularly that corner of the Chamber. I would hate to think my friend across the way would try to misrepresent me in any manner. What he said is very true. I am a very strong supporter of the protection of Canadian sovereignty.

I would like to refer to some points that are specifically germane to the motion but, most important, I would like to point out to the members of the New Democratic Party that many of the points they have raised have already been implemented and are already in place.

One of the priorities of our government has always been to listen to the concerns of Canadians and their priorities. In any policy initiative we undertake, we will always consult with Canadians. The new excise act which was introduced in the Chamber is a prime example of that sort of consultation.

The caucus task force on agriculture, which is consulting on new agriculture policy, is another example. Above all, we consult on budgetary policy. We always conduct prebudget consultations before the Minister of Finance brings down any budget. As a result, our government's budgets contain measures that not only reflect the priorities of Canadians but are measures that can be implemented within the fiscal framework in a fiscally affordable way. Perhaps that is why our government has been so successful with its budgetary policy since 1993. The elimination of the massive deficit that faced us in 1993 is the prime example.

Let us look for a moment at some of the points in today's motion. The government's most recent budget back on December 10 addressed many of these points. The NDP calls for the government to enhance Canada's environment. Let me remind the House that since 1994 our government has introduced numerous tax measures pertaining to the environment, including the introduction of and improvements to class 43.1, which provides a 30% capital cost allowance rate on equipment that uses renewable or alternative forms of energy or meets certain efficiency criteria. We have expanded the eligibility for accelerated CCA rates to encourage investments related to the product use of flare gas at oil and gas wells. We have enhanced incentives to invest in renewable energy through the introduction of the Canadian renewable and conservation expense and the use of flow-through shares. We have removed the income limit on the use of the charitable tax credit for donations of ecologically sensitive land for conservation purposes, which I know many members of the House supported.

We have also introduced qualified environmental trust rules to support the maintenance of funds designated for certain types of site reclamation activities. Our recent budgets have provided more than $1 billion in new funding to further Canadian environmental objectives.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the hon member for York West.

In the December 2001 budget, the government introduced a production incentive for wind energy and is making additional contributions to the green municipal enabling fund and the green municipal investment fund. We also expanded eligibility for accelerated CCA rates to encourage investments in small hydro projects and the productive use of blast furnace gas.

The December budget also extended the existing intergenerational tax deferral rollover of farm property to apply to commercial woodlots where the activities meet the requirements of a forest management plan. These measures all support Canadian environmental objectives.

The NDP has also called on the government to strengthen the role of aboriginal, Metis and Inuit people in the Canadian family. I urge hon. members to think back to the agreement of the first ministers signed in September 2000 on health and early childhood development. I hope they have not forgotten about that very important accord. As part of that agreement to foster early childhood development, provinces will include measures to reduce the incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome. The 2001 budget provides additional funding to intensify efforts on reserves to reduce the syndrome and its effects. Funding will be increased tenfold by $25 million over the next two years.

Some children face special learning challenges in school because of physical, emotional or developmental barriers to learning. This can include the ongoing impacts of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. To support children living on reserve with special needs at school, the 2001 budget increases funding by $60 million over two years.

As for the Canadian family in general, I hope the opposition has not forgotten the enrichments we have introduced to the Canadian child tax credit and the child tax credit changes we have implemented to help low income Canadians. Have they forgotten the tax measures we introduced to help Canadians with disabilities?

The government especially has a social conscience. The NDP wants to talk about eradicating child poverty. The government's initiatives having been designed with that goal in mind, the NDP clearly has not been listening.

Our government's commitment to tax reform remains a priority, particularly tax assistance for low and middle income Canadians. Indeed, we have provided major stimulus through lower taxes. In budget 2000 we introduced the largest tax cuts in Canadian history and in October 2000 we accelerated that plan. Last year, lower taxes put $17 billion back into the pockets of Canadian families and businesses. This year the value of the tax cuts will grow to $20 billion. This is a significant stimulus and is already working its way through the economy.

Another part of the NDP's plan concerns helping primary producers and Canadian farm families compete with foreign subsidies. Need I remind hon. members about the caucus task force on agriculture which has been working for months on the new agricultural policy? It is currently working on its interim report.

As for agricultural initiatives, over the past three years significant relief has been provided to farmers, with some $2.9 billion in disaster assistance since 1999, and it will continue to be provided. The government has allocated $500 million for next year for the Canadian farm income program, which will provide support to those most adversely affected by the drought. Moreover, the 2001 budget commits the government, led by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to continue to work with the provinces and territories, the agricultural sector and Canadian consumers to develop a new, integrated and financially sustainable agricultural policy for the 21st century. The federal government is committed to providing its share of the predictable and long term funding needed to support this new approach.

I would be remiss if I did not focus for a minute on point number eight of the NDP plan. It wants to strengthen Canadian communities with sustainable funding and strategic infrastructure investments. As hon. members know, the government's long term goals are to build a strong economy and secure society and to improve the quality of life for Canadians. The strategic investments in the 2001 budget help achieve these objectives by dealing with today's needs and bridging to a better tomorrow. The modern economy of the 21st century requires a backbone of sound physical infrastructure to sustain the nation's growth and indeed our quality of life. Canada must have the physical infrastructure it needs to succeed.

Previous budgets allocated funding to improve municipal infrastructure. In particular, the 2000 budget introduced the Infrastructure Canada program. To meet the needs of additional support for large strategic infrastructure projects, the government is creating the Canada strategic infrastructure fund with a minimum funding of $2 billion as set out in the 2001 budget. This new fund will complement other federal infrastructure initiatives such as the program I have just mentioned.

Working with provincial and municipal governments and the private sector, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund will provide assistance for large infrastructure projects in areas like highways, rail, local transportation, tourism, urban development and water and sewage treatment. Investments in these projects will stimulate job creation and confidence in the short term and make the economy more productive and competitive in the long term. I trust that my colleagues understand the implications of that.

I could certainly go on to deal with other areas but I think it is clear that the government, in these areas alone, has been addressing the issues raised by my colleagues on the other side of the House and I would therefore urge my colleagues not to support the motion before us.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present two reports in both official languages.

The first is from the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group on the Chair's annual visit to diet members held in Tokyo, Japan in November 2001.

The other is the report of the 10th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Honolulu, Hawaii in January 2002.

[Estonia, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague from Parkdale--High Park, I wish to advise the House that on Sunday, February 24, 2002, Estonians and Canadians of Estonian heritage will mark the 84th anniversary of the declaration of Estonian independence.

This is not only a day of celebration, but also a day for remembering those who fought the battle for freedom and lost their lives in doing so. For centuries, the Estonian people had dreamed of establishing a state free of foreign domination and in 1991 Estonia reclaimed its independence from the Soviet Union while keeping its language, its culture and its vision of freedom.

Estonians have played an important role in sharing their unique cultural attributes with our larger community in Canada. On this special day Canadians of Estonian heritage look forward to the future with hope and optimism for both Canada and Estonia and for even closer economic, cultural, political and diplomatic ties between these two countries.

I extend on behalf of all Canadians our warmest greetings and best wishes on the 84th anniversary of the declaration of Estonian independence.

[National Flag Day, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it was with pride that we celebrated National Flag Day on February 15. Six years have passed since the government proclaimed February 15 as National Flag Day. Our flag is recognized around the world. Canadians wear it both at home and abroad with pride.

It was with great pride and admiration that we watched our gold medallist, Catriona LeMay Doan, carry our flag during the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Salt Lake City. We were doubly proud to witness the raising of our flag and the playing of our national anthem during the medal ceremonies when three of our athletes received their gold medals.

Our flag has been a continuous source of pride for our nation since it was inaugurated in 1965. The creation of our own distinctive flag came to be in the early sixties when Prime Minister Pearson proposed a flag with three red maple leaves on a single stem on a field of white and a blue bar on either side. His proposal met with opposition in various quarters. Eventually a parliamentary committee, after viewing countless submissions, proposed our present flag with the red and white colours, as those are the official colours of Canada proclaimed by King George V in 1921.

Our flag is a symbol of who we are as a nation. That is why I salute the adoption and the promotion of National Flag Day.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of talk in the House with regard to the Ontario sex offender registry. Unfortunately it applies to those with two years and under and it deals with provincial rather than federal offenders. Therefore it is only part of the overall issue because it deals only with provincial offenders with two years and under, not with federal offenders. That is part of the problem we are trying to solve, hopefully, by establishing a strong national registry.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Even in terms of whether the issue is legislated, the fact is that anyone can provide false information. Someone may provide a false address. I agree with the member that the issue is one of discharge, how we follow up once a person has been released. Obviously that is part of the issue on which federal, provincial and territorial governments are working. Without a clear national approach, the issue the member raises could happen. Unless there is a clear national policy that all provinces and territories buy into, there would be cracks in the system.

It would seem to me that at this point the issue is one of discharge and how to improve it. I think we all agree that in terms of the tracking, even if the member's motion is taken into account, the issue is how we apply it when dealing with individuals who, for whatever reason, do not provide truthful information on the applications once they are discharged.

The issue is a critical one and I would agree with the member that this is what we need to continue to work on. That is what the consultations are trying to achieve. I would hope that the government makes it a priority to move on this as quickly as possible with its provincial counterparts. If as we have heard in the House there is concern from our provincial and territorial counterparts and from the federal government, then reaching a conclusion that is in the best interests of all Canadians in dealing with these perpetrators when they leave should not be that difficult to attain.

In that regard, I would implore the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice to move as quickly as possible with their provincial counterparts and report to the House as soon as possible on that matter.