James Rajotte

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I note for the record that none of my questions were answered. I have asked these questions many times in the House and in committee. I have never received serious answers to these questions. According to the government, we are the party apparently that is not making Parliament work. We ask serious questions and it would be nice to once in a while get some answers.

Here are some facts. As of October 18, 2004, TPC authorized assistance of over $77 million to Cascade Data Services; Dupont, over $19 million; Honeywell, over $100 million; Pratt & Whitney, over $700 million; and Rolls-Royce Canada, over $75 million.

The fact is that taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being allocated, for what reason it is being allocated and when, if ever, their money will be paid back? It is their money. It is not Parliament's money. It is not the government's money. These companies do not have a right to it.

The parliamentary secretary raises the issue of secrecy. If these companies are not comfortable in releasing this information, then they should not have taxpayers funding their activities in the first place. When are Canadians finally going to get some answers about this program?

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this series of questions is a follow-up to a question I asked with respect to Technology Partnerships Canada, a program within Industry Canada. I have some very serious questions I would like the government to answer about this program.

For information purposes, the program has allocated over $2 billion since 1996. Its recovery rate is less than 5% of the money that it has allocated. I have three series of questions.

The first is in terms of the number of jobs created. The government has in the past talked about the number of jobs created under this program. I would like to know how many jobs have been created, how many jobs have been maintained through the program, which companies have created or maintained these jobs, and in which year were these jobs created or maintained?

My second series of questions relates to the repayments. It is a question that taxpayers across the country would be asking about a program allocating over $2 billion. Why has only 5% of this money been recovered since 1996, and why does the government keep changing the time period in which it says it will recover these payments?

I can recall years ago the former minister, Allan Rock, saying it would be recovered within a five-year period. It stretched to seven. I recall the current industry minister saying 20 years. Why does the government keep changing the time period in which it will recover from all of these programs?

The third question I would like to pose is in terms of a review. I have been promised a review for years by the previous industry minister, Allan Rock, and by the previous industry minister who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I want to quote from a letter she wrote to me:

In 2004, I intend to launch the TPC Strategic Review. The Review will ensure TPC is meeting its current objectives, and will identify the outcomes of its efforts. It will also ensure TPC is able to provide sufficient support to emerging new strategic transformative technologies in areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, andenvironmental and health sciences.

The TPC report was promised by Allan Rock, promised by the previous industry minister, and also promised by the current industry minister in the Ottawa Business Journal of September 2004. The industry minister talked about being keen to review this tech funding program, and yet to my knowledge all we have had are the annual reports, many of which have arrived late.

In the interests of transparency and openness, and in the interests of being accountable to taxpayers which is the first and foremost job of Parliament, will the government finally come clean, answer these series of questions, answer why it has not produced a review, answer the questions about the jobs created and maintained, and answer the questions about the repayments?

[Committees of the House, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the key is that it has only been partly responded to with certain issues. Depreciation rates are accelerated for pipelines, combustion turbines for electricity generation, electricity transmission, cable for telecommunication infrastructure and rates will increase for investment in more efficient renewable energy generation, including cogeneration. However, the specific area I would like the parliamentary secretary to address is the manufacturing sector, which any industrialized nation needs to have as basis of its economy.

The manufacturing sector is 18% of our GDP and accounts for a lot of the high paying jobs in Canada. I want to read from the CME's 2005 budget analysis. It gives some credit to the government for the budget, but I want to read the following statement:

--the government's failure to accelerate depreciation allowances for manufacturing equipment is a major disappointment. It is clear from this budget that while the government is willing to spend heavily on one hand, and use the tax system for environmental policy purposes on the other, it just doesn't get it when it comes to building a competitive investment environment in Canada. After building up expectations that the federal government would address the challenges facing Canadian industry, the few measures introduced in this year's budget--

[Committees of the House, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up question to one I had months ago with respect to capital cost allowance rates. It is a very specific thing, so for people observing this debate I want to explain what it is.

Capital cost allowance is a tax deduction for business related capital property and provides for the depreciation of these assets. The CCA rate is applicable to about 44 classes and is intended to reflect as closely as possible the useful lives of these assets. This rate essentially allows companies to write off their capital equipment at an accelerated rate. It allows them to turn over their equipment. There are two reasons, two large reasons I would argue, that we should improve this.

First, it makes companies more productive, more efficient, and puts our manufacturing sector on a level playing field. That is very important. One of the things the Conservative Party thinks needs to happen is an increase in our productivity here in Canada. The gap between ourselves and the United States has been increasing certainly over the past number years. As well there are the emerging economies, India, China, Brazil. We are very concerned in terms of our future standard of living.

The second reason is actually a stated goal of many Canadians, which would be environmental reasons. It allows companies to adopt newer technologies and newer equipment which is more environmentally friendly, and more energy efficient, which should certainly be a goal of the government.

This is in line with what the finance committee recommended. It was the 14th recommendation in the prebudget submission that:

The federal government revise Canada's capital cost allowance rates by 31 March 2005 such that they meet three criteria:

--similar asset classes are treated similarly;

--Canadian rates are similar to the rates for comparable asset classes in the United States and other countries; and

--Canadian rates reflect the useful life of the assets.

Moreover, the government should review these rates annually to ensure that they continue to meet the three criteria identified.

The government in its budget adopted some measures with respect to capital cost allowance rates, and we support those. They are limited, but we support those. I think the biggest one missing is to have a universal increase in the capital cost allowance rates, particularly for the manufacturing sector.

The Canadian manufacturers and exporters have called for this for a number of years, have argued very strongly for it. We need to support them. We need to support our manufacturing sector industries. They employ Canadians. Generally they pay very well. We need to have Canadians succeed in that sector.

I am calling on the government to adopt basically what was in the finance committee report and to change the capital cost allowance rates in the ways in which the Canadian manufacturers and exporters and other groups have called on the government to do.

[Income Tax Act, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that I did not get any answers to the questions I asked, and they are legitimate questions.

As well, I would point out to the government that flying in judges from all over the country is not an answer. The simple answer is to find a qualified candidate and appoint him or her to be the citizenship judge. Instead of flying judges from Ontario and elsewhere across the country into Edmonton to do a ceremony, why not appoint someone from the community? Is someone from the city of Edmonton not qualified to take on this position?

I would renew the question again about the person who did the job. Judge Bhatia did an excellent job. If the government is having a tough time finding someone to replace him, why not renew his contract, at least for a temporary period, and put him in place to deal with the situation of this backlog?

I would like some specific answers to these specific questions. I do want to point out that this is certainly not also a problem with the department in the city of Edmonton. In the city of Edmonton, according to my office, the local citizenship and immigration office deals very well with these situations, but it needs some leadership in terms of a citizenship judge.

When will Edmonton have a judge? Why has it taken nine months? Why not renew the contract of the previous judge? These are three very straightforward questions.

[Income Tax Act, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to once again address the issue of the lack of a citizenship judge in Edmonton. I want to perhaps give a timeline and some background for the benefit of the House.

Edmonton has not had a citizenship judge since July 3, 2004. In September 2004 I wrote to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explaining this problem and asking her to address it as soon as possible. The fact is that as a member of Parliament I never even received an acknowledgement or a response to that letter, so I wrote again to the new minister, the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in January 2005.

I did not get a response to that letter, so I raised the issue in the House of Commons on February 4. That is the issue that I followed up with at this time, and the Minister of Public Works at the time did not know about the issue, but he said he would get back to me. Again, nobody on the government side got back to me with anything. There was more waiting and no appointment. I raised the issue again, this time in the House on March 7.

I want to point this out because I have tried to follow the legitimate process. I have tried not to make this a partisan issue. It is an issue of just appointing a citizenship judge for all the citizens of Edmonton, and obviously for those people who hope to become citizens of Edmonton.

I raised this again on March 7 and the minister answered with what I consider one of the most contemptible responses I have ever received in the House, basically casting aspersions on our political party, instead of actually addressing the issue of why there was no citizenship judge in Edmonton.

The written response came from the minister later that month, seven months after I had originally written to the previous minister of immigration. It basically said that everything was fine and that there was a merit process in progress. There is no reason why it would take eight months. It was also stated that many prospective candidates were being looked at. It was obviously an inadequate response for the people of Edmonton.

I do want to give some background here. Edmonton has been without a citizenship judge for more than nine months. There is a backlog of well over 2,000 people, and at some point there were perhaps up to 4,000 people waiting to officially become new Canadians. That is why the issue matters. We have people in line who have left whatever homeland they had to seek and to build a better life, and to become citizens of this great country. They should be welcomed with open arms when they pass through all the hoops to do so.

It is incumbent upon the government to make this appointment just from a question of basic competence. I would like to ask some very specific questions.

Why has it taken so long to make this appointment? When will Edmonton finally have a citizenship judge of its own? If the government could not make up its mind for nine months, why did it not choose to renew the contract of a previous judge, Judge Bhatia?

Judge Bhatia, frankly, did an excellent job. I have no idea what his political leanings were and that is the way it should have been. He was a true public servant. I attended many ceremonies with this individual. He did such an excellent job of welcoming citizens. I would stand beside him welcoming these people. He spoke a few words in about 27 different languages and he would spend a little moment with each person. It was such a heartwarming event.

He is of Sikh background and would give an excellent speech about what it means to be a Canadian, and the very multicultural fabric of our nation. He is just an excellent public servant. If the government cannot make a decision, it should certainly renew his appointment. I would like the government to answer specifically these very straightforward genuine questions.

[Infrastructure, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The Liberal government has given $100 million in grants and interest-free loans over the last decade to Mont Tremblant, a ski resort owned by Intrawest Corporation. At the same time, and there is an interesting relationship along the way, Intrawest has donated more than $100,000 to the Liberal Party. That is a relationship that the government has to explain.

Is this simply not another kickback program instituted by the government?

[Infrastructure, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we learned this weekend of a cozy relationship between the Mont Tremblant ski facility owned by Intrawest and the health of Liberal Party coffers. It seems that when donations to the Liberal Party by Intrawest began to rise, the amount of taxpayer money funnelled into the ski resort also increased.

One begins to wonder whether this kickback culture is not just exclusive to the Liberal advertising program.

Can the Minister of Industry explain the relationship between the increase in Liberal Party donations by Intrawest and the increased taxpayer money going to Mont Tremblant?

[Sponsorship Program, April 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal party spin doctors have been working overtime trying to minimize the impact of the sponsorship scandal by telling Canadians that the scandal is really not that bad and that opposition politicians have been exaggerating the extent of corruption within the Liberal Party. Therefore, in the interests of fairness and non-partisanship, it is only appropriate for me to quote a Liberal, the Liberal MP for Edmonton--Mill Woods--Beaumont to be precise. This is what he said on the weekend:

The Liberal Party is seen as looking on the public trust as a vulture looks on a dying calf. Here we are, a G-7 country, acting like a northern banana republic. What country is seen as more politically corrupt than us at the moment?

He did not stop there. There is more. He also said:

If you draw up a thing to make people want to vomit, this is it. This is everything to make you sick to the stomach. You can mumble the line, it's about a few people, but there's really nothing you can say.

I could not have said it better myself.

[CIS National Hockey Championship, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Alberta Golden Bears on winning the CIS national hockey championship this year.

The Bears defeated the University of Saskatchewan Huskies last Monday night in Edmonton to capture their 11th national title, more than any other university team in Canadian history.

In fact, Alberta is the only team in CIS history to win a championship in each of the five decades that the University Cup has been competed for.

What is the secret of their success? One factor is that the team is and has been blessed with great leadership, namely tremendous coaches: current coach Rob Daum, former coaches Billy Moores and the legendary Clare Drake.

What really distinguishes the Bears is a commitment to common excellence, as exemplified in their selfless motto above their dressing room: “It's amazing what can be accomplished when no one cares who gets the credit”.

Congratulations to all of the University of Alberta Golden Bears, the players, coaches, support staff and their great fans in Edmonton.