James Moore

[Government Contracts, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Public Works Canada first awarded and then cancelled two contracts with Abotech, a company owned by a Liberal MP's wife.

Can the minister explain why these contracts were cancelled and what the irregularities identified by the KPMG consultants were?

[Petitions, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in my second petition the petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that our children need protection from sexual exploitation.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to raise the age of sexual consent.

[Petitions, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table in the House today.

I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The petition recognizes the growing threat posed by date rape drugs, GHB and rohypnol, when used in the commission of sexual assaults.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to create a separate schedule for specific date rape drugs, establish a national initiative to educate women on the dangers of date rape drugs and establish a national task force to develop new guidelines in the collection and documentation of evidence in sexual assault investigations to facilitate investigations so we can fight those who are abusing women with date rape drugs.

[Transport Canada, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday another CN freight train derailed, this on top of four serious derailments in August.

An investigation into a fatal derailment in 2003 states:

Although TC had developed a program...that called for...inspections and audits...the program was not consistently carried out....

The review concluded:

Because there was no Transport Canada...audit of work procedures, there was no opportunity to identify...[problems].

Transport Canada dropped the ball and two people died.

Investigating CN is not enough. When will the minister start doing his job at protecting Canadians?

[Income Tax Act, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-306, an act to amend the Income Tax Act for public transportation costs.

For Canadians watching, this may well be a very interesting debate that is shaping up here. We have the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and, I presume, the NDP in favour of a private member's bill that has budgetary implications, but I think it is past time that the House stop talking about people who are interested in having more access to public transit and actually move forward to helping that happen.

As the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher said when presenting her private member's bill, Bill C-306, in the House on May 31, her intent is to provide taxpayers with a deduction for the cost of their bus or train passes in order to further encourage them to make greater use of the various modes of public transportation.

This is an idea whose time has come.

In the past, governments have offered Canadians tax deductions for retirement savings, charitable donations, and training and education. In each case the idea has been that by providing the tax deductions to Canadians, the government could encourage them to embrace certain initiatives, such as self-improvement or providing for their retirement.

Just as various governments have taxed alcohol and cigarettes in an effort to discourage their consumption, those same governments have provided tax deductions to encourage Canadians to adopt other, more desirable behaviours. It has long been government practice to use the Income Tax Act in this type of stick and carrot approach.

Bill C-306 is no different. It proposes to modify the Income Tax Act to encourage greater use of the various modes of public transportation. In this way, it is 100% compatible with Transport Canada's “National Vision for Urban Transit to 2020”. Paragraph 14 of that document's urban transit policy goals recommends:

A level playing field from the standpoint of transit versus auto travel decisions based on consideration of real costs and affordability, including under-priced parking and rationalization of income tax regulations affecting allowable deductions and taxable benefits.

Thus, Bill C-306 springs directly from Transport Canada's own documents, yet the Liberal government opposes it. In his May 31 speech opposing Bill C-306, the Liberal for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel said that numerous studies suggest that tax assistance for transit passes is not the best method to promote an increased use of public transportation. Presumably he has not read Transport Canada's own recommendations.

He spoke in general terms of the promised federal money to municipalities for urban infrastructure and environmental purposes and about how some of these funds could be used to support urban transit. In addition, he spoke of specific federal commitments to urban transit projects in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, presumably aimed at attracting voters in those urban areas. He argued that these investments “will result in a significant improvement in public transit services across Canada”.

Essentially, the Liberals believe that in a pre-election period they can promise $1 billion to the urban transit authorities in our three biggest cities, encourage other cities to give transit authorities some of the money that would otherwise go into roads and sewers, and, in an instant, public transit will improve and people will abandon cars en masse and pay for public transit.

Unfortunately, it is not quite so simple. It is not enough for the federal government to promise funding for public transit. It has to go much further. MPs must become more familiar with municipal transit, not just in their ridings but right across the country.

A successful urban transit authority does not just offer transport to those who cannot afford cars. It has to encourage motorists to leave their cars at home. Just as the federal government should support urban transit, it should also take direct measures to encourage Canadian motorists to give buses a try.

Let us not overlook the fact that most people who today drive cars once were students and rode buses. Their memories of the transit systems of their student days may have nothing in common with today's transit systems, but unless they are given a real incentive to try urban transit, most will stay in their cars. That is the thinking behind Bill C-306. It proposes to give motorists a tangible incentive to try urban transit.

A background paper published by the Canadian Urban Transit Association states that when the U.S. government made employer-provided transit benefits tax exempt in 1984, transit ridership increased almost 25% among people who were offered the benefit. This confirms the thinking in Transport Canada's “National Vision for Urban Transit to 2020”, but then, the Liberals still have not read it.

However, the Conservatives have read it and on August 4 our leader, the leader of the official opposition, announced that the Conservative Party wants to allow commuters to “deduct the cost of their monthly transit passes from their income taxes as part of a Made-in-Canada clean-air policy that will promote increased transit ridership and result in reduced traffic congestion, smog and greenhouse gasses”.

Michael Roschlau, president of the Canadian Urban Transit Association, praised our initiative and was pleasantly surprised, in part because, in his words, “the government in power for the past 10 years has been resisting it”.

Our proposal is to institute a 16% federal tax credit for transit users which would apply to the purchase of any monthly pass for themselves and their dependants. It is a simple initiative, is very similar in spirit to Bill C-306, and is welcomed by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, Transport 2000 and Canadian members of the Sierra Club.

Bill C-306 is also similar to Bill 137 currently before the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. That bill, proposed by Durham Conservative MPP John O'Toole, was proposed on October 28, 2004, and would offer Ontario taxpayers non-refundable income tax credits equal to 50% of their public transit expenses. My office has been in contact with Mr. O'Toole's staff to support his worthy initiative in Ontario.

The bureaucrats understand the importance of promoting public transit. For more than a year, employees of Public Works and Government Services Canada working in the national capital region have been able to purchase discounted annual transit passes from OC Transpo, and the Société de transport de l'Outaouais for those who work and live in Gatineau, through monthly deductions. However, there is no federal assistance, no federal government participation.

The call on the Liberal government to use tax policy to encourage Canadians to use public transit is an old one. On November 4, 1998, Nelson Riis, the former NDP finance critic and member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, introduced Motion No. 360 calling on the government to “consider making employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit”. During his speech in favour of the motion, Mr. Riis said:

It is interesting that both the Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce and the Toronto Board of Trade are now calling on the government to allow this tax exemption to proceed. Businesses are voicing their concern over the impact and high cost of congestion. This is viewed as an important demonstration of the government's commitment to achieving emission reduction targets.

At the same time, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the member for Richmond Hill, spoke in favour of this motion, saying:

The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has stated that it is incumbent on the government to ensure that environmental policy is not hampered by fiscal policy. It is unfortunate that at the moment Canada has not joined other industrialized countries such as the United States and several countries in western Europe in making employee provided transit passes a non-taxable benefit.

His statement is still true today, but he has chosen to flip-flip and now oppose what he once supported. What is interesting, however, is that Mr. Riis' motion passed the House of Commons on a vote with the Liberals in support. It passed by a margin of 240 in favour to 25 opposed on April 13, 1999. As in so many other circumstances, the Liberals voted one way and did the opposite. Their massive support for making employer provided transit passes an income tax exempt benefit never resulted in any concrete action by the Liberals. Worse, we are now at a point where the Liberal chair of the finance committee, who just spoke, is dead set against the idea despite a Transport Canada report that supports it.

Nonetheless, there is no denying that this is an idea whose time has come. Gas prices are high, and the Minister of the Environment and his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources are both on record as saying that high oil prices are here to stay and that Canadians should drive less.

Civil servants and employees at large institutions are buying discounted monthly passes at their workplaces in various cities. The government of Ontario is considering creating a refundable tax credit for transit users. As well, the NDP and Conservative caucuses are 100% behind this policy.

Genuine federal encouragement of increased public transit use can be the boost that will permanently increase ridership and change commuter patterns in our big cities. I call on Parliament to support this motion and therefore the Leader of the Opposition's proposal for a healthier environment and support for public transit.

[Sponsorship Program, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today Paul Coffin, the only person to have been sanctioned for that fraud, is giving his first lecture on ethics at McGill University.

How can the public continue to have confidence in Canadian justice, when the only person punished for this fraud is called upon to give lectures on ethics?

When, then, will a Liberal be really punished and put in jail?

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we should have competitive tax rates. Tax rates would be more competitive if this Liberal member and this Liberal government had not gotten into bed with the NDP to nix the tax relief that was offered in the first Liberal budget this spring. We should have a competitive economy and competitive tax rates, but we are not there yet.

There were three points that the member made in his preamble. His first point was that GST collected on fuel taxes will not necessarily mean savings for citizens, because if citizens are not paying that GST tax by purchasing fuel, then they will pay that GST if they are purchasing groceries, clothing, books or whatever, and that money would still flow back to the government.

That is a pretty weak argument. In fact, it is a profoundly weak argument, because what the member is missing is the very idea of choice. Citizens should have more choice in how they want to live their lives.

The reason I am a Conservative is that I believe in lower taxes, less government and more freedom. I believe in personal responsibility and empowering citizens to make choices about how they want to live their lives. Everything should not be governed by what impact it will have on a Liberal government and its ability to have a certain amount of money to spend.

What it should be about, and what we should be trying to do here, is setting up an efficient economic system so that citizens have more choice in how they want to live their lives. They should not be saddled by excessive GST on fuel because that money would just be collected elsewhere. Citizens should have choice as to whether or not they want to purchase fuel or purchase something else and not be hammered down by the cost of heavy taxes.

The second point the member made was about the issue of tax relief on fuel not being passed on to consumers in times past, the argument being that if we cut taxes on fuel, the oil companies will just come in and consume the tax room because the presumption is that the market sets the price of fuel relative to what the taxes are. The truth is that this is not entirely true. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment made that the centrepoint of his whole presentation here this evening and it is not true. It has been true in circumstances, but it is not a universal truth.

There are certainly circumstances where taxes have been lowered and consumers have seen that benefit. That is what needs to take place. If we drive around almost any city in this country, we will realize that at one gas station, gas is $1.06 per litre, and if we drive three blocks, it is $1.17 per litre, and if we go somewhere else, it is $1.04 per litre, all in the same day. That is because there is competition. It has never been proven in the last 15 years that there is some kind of collusion between the gas companies. There is competition, and if the government lowers the taxes it will be reflected in the price at the pumps.

The third point the member made is that the government said it does want to do something with the home heating situation that will arise this coming winter and that even though the government made some mistakes in the past it was not all bad and we should try it again. The government did not just make some mistakes in the past; it was a horrendous failure. Over $1 billion went to people who did not need home heating rebates. Prisoners got it. People who were dead got it. Students in university, who do not pay for home heating fuel, got it. One out of every three cheques went to people who did not need it. It was a huge waste on the treasury. That tax relief could have gone somewhere else or that investment could have been used by the government on something else.

I received a home heating rebate cheque. Every member of Parliament in this place earns $144,000 a year. I do not hear any members of the House complaining about their salaries, but the government so pathetically botched that home heating rebate that I as a member of Parliament personally received a home heating rebate cheque. If the member thinks his government's scheme for home heating rebates is a good plan and wants to revisit that this fall and this coming winter as a solution to the high cost of fuel, the member is sadly mistaken and clearly has not learned the lessons of the past.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue on behalf of my constituents of Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam.

As the transport critic for the official opposition, I rise to call on the Liberal government to take action on the rapidly increasing price of fuel for Canadians.

I am a bit distressed by some of the comments that I have heard tonight by my Liberal colleagues opposite. Some of them have suggested that the government has no plan at all, that they hope that the continued Liberal inaction will help wean Canadians off of petroleum and off of this issue. For example, the Minister of the Environment said that high gas prices are not necessarily a bad thing and that in fact they are “actually good for Canada in the medium and the long term”. He is on the record as advocating greater use of both bicycles and public transit.

I agree with both these latter initiatives. The Leader of the Conservative Party is a very strong advocate of public transit. On August 4 of this year he announced our party's plan to allow commuters to deduct the cost of their monthly transit passes from their income taxes as part of a made in Canada clean air policy that would promote increased transit ridership and result in reduced traffic congestion, smog and greenhouse gases.

The Liberals have not yet adopted a similar position. They are more interested in taxing Canadians than in giving them real incentives to take public transit.

However, Canada is not a nation that can last simply on public transit such as Hong Kong where an excellent urban transit system and greater use of bicycles are a clear solution to rising oil prices. Instead, we are a country that spans an entire continent encompassing a full seven time zones. Our territory is slightly greater than that of China and our population is roughly twice that of the Netherlands. Many Canadians do not know this but Canada is more than twice the size as the Roman Empire was at its peak in size.

We are a relatively small population spread out over a vast land. For example, the distance between Ottawa and my riding of Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam is greater than the distance between Toronto and Mexico City. Halifax is closer to Europe than it is to Vancouver.

The need to facilitate interprovincial trade is essential to both our economy and to our identity as Canadians. Thus on February 25, 2003 when the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. David Collenette, tabled “Straight Ahead: A Vision for Transportation in Canada”, he highlighted the need for efficient movement of people and goods to support economic prosperity and a sustainable quality of life based on competitive markets and targeted use of regulatory and spending interventions. Let me repeat that. Two and a half years ago the then Liberal Minister of Transport saw the efficient movement of goods and people as central to our economic prosperity and quality of life.

When former transport minister Collenette made his statement, 100% of the means of transportation between our cities and regions and provinces was dependent on hydrocarbons. In fact, when he proposed a high speed train for the Montreal-Toronto corridor, the technology he proposed would have required fossil fuels. Nothing has changed. Despite a dozen years of Liberal talk we have seen no concrete actions by the government that would significantly reduce our reliance on hydrocarbons.

When the Minister of the Environment approves of higher gas prices, he is turning his back on the efficient movement of people and goods and supporting the type of inflation that threatens the very economic prosperity and quality of life that the former transport minister claimed the government supported.

Already StatsCanada is reporting the impact of high gas prices on the economy. It stated that in August “consumer prices rose 2.6% compared with those of a year earlier mainly because gasoline soared by 20.1%”. On September 22, Ted Carmichael, chief economist at JP Morgan Securities Canada, predicted that Canada's inflation rate could reach 3.5% or 4% in the next couple of months as a result of spiralling gas prices. In fact, even as far back as June of this year when the Canadian Federation of Independent Business surveyed its 100,000 members, fully 78% of its members cited rising energy prices as their top concern.

That is hardly a surprise because Canada's business leaders are always ahead of governments and they truly understand the links between fuel prices and distribution costs. They know that rising fuel prices are reflected in the price of fresh fruit, merchandise and household items. They are aware that fuel costs are a component of almost everything we buy and everything we sell. In fact, already representatives of the Canadian Trucking Alliance have been quoted as saying that a 25% fuel charge is currently being applied to most truck shipments and this will undoubtedly be reflected in the price of most consumer and business items.

Last week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that soaring energy prices are squeezing most small businesses and pushing one in five into the red. Small and medium size businesses are the engine of our economy, so if high energy prices are negatively affecting small businesses right across Canada, the government should listen.

In British Columbia, Laura Jones, CFIB's Vancouver based vice-president, said that the vast majority of small businesses, more than 95%, have fewer than 50 employees. Eleven per cent of B.C.'s small businesses report that they are actually losing money directly due to fuel prices, and a whopping 68% have reported significantly lower profits.

Predictably, the most vulnerable small businesses are in the transportation sector where 32% of operators say they are losing money. That means that one in three transport companies are losing money because of high fuel prices. Already Air Canada and WestJet have introduced fuel surcharges and contemplated other strategies such as reducing baggage allowance and carrying fewer pillows and blankets on domestic flights.

However, the two transportation sectors that are getting savaged the most are taxis and independent truckers. Both are in situations where they are not easily able to pass on higher costs to their customers. For example, in most cities taxi authorities want to ensure that taxis can carry passengers large and small, as well as families and those with mobility challenges. It is not uncommon for them to require a taxi operator to drive a full size car, such as a Chevy Caprice or a Ford Crown Victoria. Neither of these is easy on gas, but cabbies are generally not allowed to drive Toyota Echos and Daimler Smart Cars by law.

As a result, rising fuel bills are really hurting taxi drivers. Cabbies are caught between a rock and a hard place, the rock being rising fuel prices and the hard place being local requirements and metered fares. The result has been taxi driver demonstrations and desperate and unheard pleas for the government to listen and to take action.

Independent truckers are in a similar spot, caught between rising fuel prices and low freight rates. The results here included a 47 day blockage of the entry to the port of Vancouver by 1,200 members of the Vancouver Container Truckers Association in July and August, and an 11 site, 500 truck demonstration that blocked New Brunswick highways 2, 11 and 17 for three days in early September. A more attentive government would have noticed that fuel prices were a central issue of both protests, but the Liberals are not known for listening.

Given that taxes make up roughly 40% of the pump price of gasoline, one would think that the government has ample room to take action. However, there is no political will to do so. In fact the member for Ajax--Pickering actually said, “The worst thing we could do is slash what little we collect because then we're not working toward any kind of solution”. I suspect that his kind of little amount is quite different from mine.

Budget estimates pegged total fuel revenues from the 10¢ a litre excise tax at $4.68 billion this year. In addition, last year the federal government collected $1.198 billion in gasoline GST revenues. That is roughly $7 billion, or about 3.7% of total federal revenues. Last year's GST revenues of roughly $1.2 billion were based on an average pump price of roughly 84¢ for the period May 2004 to April 2005. For every 10¢ per litre increase in fuel, Ottawa's GST revenues increase by $175 million a year. According to M.J. Ervin Associates the Canadian average pump price on September 13, the last date for which they have a Canadian average price, was $1.099 per litre.

If the May 2004 to April 2005 average was 84¢, and if the current price stays at $1.10 a litre, the Liberal government will bring in an extra $455 million in GST revenue this year, or roughly $14.15 from every man, woman and child in the country. That is $455 million that was not in the budget and was not expected for current expenditures. It is money that comes from a tax on a tax. More important, it is money the Liberals want to put into their election slush fund.

Soon Canadians will hear of home heating fuel rebates and similar ill-conceived plans from the Liberals that did not work before and will not work again if these Liberals are to manage them. Canadians do not just want a break on heating bills, they want a break on the price of lettuce, taxi fares, appliances, fast food, and children's clothes. Unless fuel prices drop, all of these items will increase in price because they are all carried by truck.

I call on the government to take action today against rising fuel prices, or during the next election Canadians will be asked to choose between a Conservative government that understands Canada's transportation needs and a Liberal government that has no plan, no agenda, but pockets full of disposable taxpayers' dollars that it does not need.

[Justice, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Paul Coffin defrauded Canadians out of $1.5 million. For this crime, he got a mere two years of house arrest. Even Martha Stewart spent time in jail.

In Canada, our liberal laws have failed Canadians and helped the friends of the Liberal Party. Is this the Liberal concept of justice?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting no.

(The House divided on the Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)