Jason Kenney

[Committees Of The House, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on Wednesday, November 26, 1997 be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Transit Passes, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move concurrence in a committee report.

[Transit Passes, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Motion No. 360, put so eloquently this evening by my colleague from Kamloops, that in the opinion of the House the government should consider making employer provided transit passes an income tax benefit.

At the outset I sincerely commend my colleague from Kamloops for his very thoughtful presentation and initiative. He has brought before us a very considered approach to providing an incentive for a responsible transportation policy which would have a positive impact on the environment.

It is refreshing to find that the first government speaker following the member from Kamloops was not the obligatory parliamentary secretary standing up to read a speech written by bureaucrats opposing a good initiative from a private member. It is encouraging to see that pattern broken this evening.

I am open to supporting this motion, but I have several significant concerns which I will outline and which I hope my hon. colleague will have an opportunity to respond to.

My principal concern is that tax policy should be neutral. One of the guiding principles of good sound tax policy should be neutrality and we ought not to design the tax code as a lever of social engineering. We ought not to try to force or create false incentives for people to act in a way we think is desirable.

To do so is really beyond the principal purpose of the tax system which is simply to raise revenues in the most efficient way possible to finance the needs of government.

Instead of a tax system free of exemptions, deductions and credits of the nature proposed this evening, I prefer one which is much lower overall, with much more generous basic personal and spousal exemptions which in effect would allow people to make decisions about how they spend their money and conduct their lives by themselves, according to their own priorities and not the priorities of politicians and bureaucrats.

I have a deep theoretical reservation to supporting initiatives of this nature. I was the only member of my party to vote against a private member's bill which came before us earlier this year from my hon. colleague from Portage—Lisgar to allow for the deductibility of mortgage interest payments on principal residences. While this would have been an enormously popular incentive for people to invest in home ownership, it occurred to me that it would have been an enormous addition of a complex, special credit in the tax system which would make it even more costly to administer and would again create these kinds of false incentives rather than letting people face a completely neutral tax system.

I opposed the motion for mortgage deductibility then and that is why I have some serious theoretical concerns with this kind of exemption.

I would much prefer to completely overhaul the Byzantine, 1,300 page Income Tax Act which we have constructed in this parliament over the past 80 years since the temporary Income Tax Act of 1917 by adopting some kind of simple, pure, clean, neutral, flat or single tax similar to that proposed by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood in his various versions of a single tax or in some of the propositions for a flat tax offered by members of my own party.

This kind of tax reform would allow Canadians to decide whether or not they are going to use their after tax income on transit passes, on parking or on other priorities. It would not create a government incentive for social engineering.

I have other questions that relate to other potential objections that I hope the hon. member will have a chance to respond to.

It occurs to me that the adoption of employer provided transit passes and the tax exemption thereon would create an inequity between those who have these transit passes provided by their employers and those who do not have such a privilege, those who by circumstance of their employment agreements have to pay for their transportation costs individually through after tax dollars.

It seems to me that this would weight the playing field and reduce the neutrality of the tax system in favour of some taxpayers who happen to have employers who subsidize their transportation against those who would end up having to pay after tax dollars for their transportation. That is the kind of inequity that arises when we play with the neutrality of the tax code.

I am also concerned with the cost issue. The national task force to promote employer provided, tax exempt transit passes estimates, in its very thoughtful submission to the House of Commons finance committee, that the potential gross loss in federal revenue through this measure would be between $18 million and $28 million.

This contradicts quite significantly the estimate made by the Department of Finance which suggests that the cost to the public treasury in reduced revenues would be as much as $140 million.

I do not think any of us in this House are capable of examining in detail the assumptions used in these competing estimates, but there is such an enormous disparity between the $18 million estimate and the $140 million estimate provided by the Department of Finance that I think before we support this motion we really ought to have a clearer and better answer to the question of how much potential revenue we are prepared to forgo through the adoption of this exemption.

Let me also say that there is another potential inequity, in that many millions of Canadians do not live in urban areas and do not have access to or need major transit systems and would not use a bus or a subway system. I can imagine many people who drive to work through necessity, whether they live and work in the suburbs, in smaller towns or in rural communities. These are people who have to pay for their own personal transportation costs through after tax dollars. It seems to me, again, inequitable to suggest that only those who live in major urban centres and have access to major urban transit systems would get a special tax exemption.

For all of those reasons I would like to reserve judgment on this motion, although I am very open to supporting it. I hope we can get clearer information on the potential cost to be incurred by the treasury. I also think that we should look more closely at the question of the potential inequities that this kind of special tax exemption would create.

In closing, I would call on all members to work toward a simpler, less costly, more efficient and more neutral tax system, with a much lower overall burden, which would allow Canadians themselves to make decisions about how they will spend their after tax dollars, rather than we as parliamentarians making those decisions for them through the adoption of special incentives of this nature.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by some 32 residents of Calgary and other parts of Alberta.

They are calling on parliament to take note of the need to reform our laws with respect to child support payments and child custody to ensure that all parents are guaranteed access to their children and that non-adversarial means be used wherever possible in mediating co-parenting situations.

[United Alternative, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last May the Leader of the Opposition invited supporters of different federal and provincial parties to come together at a national assembly to discuss forming a united alternative to Liberal misgovernment.

A poll released just today adds strength to this initiative by offering proof that Canadians want a strong united alternative to the top down, tax and spend, soft on crime, Ottawa knows best mentality of this increasingly arrogant government.

According to the National Post -Compass survey, 36% of Canadians would vote for a united alternative for fiscal and social responsibility, democratic accountability and strengthened unity through rebalanced powers. Add to this base another 30% of Canadians who say they will consider voting for a national alternative that shares their values and this spells big trouble for the Liberals who won the last election with only 38% of the vote and lost it in nine out of ten provinces.

That is why I wish once again to extend to all Canadians, especially my friends in the Conservative caucus, an invitation to join like-minded Canadians in helping to shape a broad political movement that can govern Canada leading into the 21st century.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being able to rise in support of the motion moved by my esteemed colleague from Calgary West and seconded by my learned colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona. It is an important motion that reads:

That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, polls and correspondence relating to the Calgary declaration.

This is a very sensible motion, as my colleague said, calling for transparency with respect to an important development on the national unity file. It is particularly important because several times my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has risen in his place to ask members of the government cabinet at question time what exactly they plan to do, if anything, to consult Canadians on the Calgary declaration.

I believe the maiden question put by my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona in this place last year related to that point: what, if anything, the federal government was doing to consult Canadians about the Calgary declaration given that at least nine of the ten provincial governments engaged in fairly exhaustive and in depth consultation processes.

Unfortunately we have yet to receive, notwithstanding several efforts, a clear response to that very simple question. It seems the federal government has no plan to consult Canadians about the future reform of the federation and potential amendments to our Constitution.

We find this very worrisome. If Canadians have learned one thing over the past 15 years of politics surrounding national unity and the Constitution, it is that a behind closed doors top down approach to constitutional reform is rejected out of hand by Canadians.

We saw this in the approach the Liberal government took to the repatriation of the Constitution and the adoption of the charter of rights in 1982 by limiting debate to a small circle of political elite within the government. That decision did not carry the support of the majority of Canadians in a majority of regions. It ended up helping to create ongoing constitutional discord because it did not embrace the heartfelt concerns of Quebecers with respect to repatriation.

Similarly in the efforts made by the federal government in 1986 through 1990 to adopt the Meech Lake accord we saw the same kind of top down, secretive, behind closed doors, executive federalism. It was elite brokerage politics which left ordinary Canadians on the outside of the information loop and left politicians alone on the inside. This led to enormous public cynicism about the Meech Lake accord, which ultimately was its undoing.

That in itself led to a revival of separatist sentiments in the province of Quebec, which then led to the sad history of the Charlottetown accord in 1982. The then federal government finally realized that leaving Canadians on the outside of the process and maintaining secrecy about negotiations and consultations on unity and constitutional reform was no longer acceptable. That question was put to Canadians in the referendum held in October 1992. We know of the remarkable historic result. Canadians overwhelmingly rejected the jerry-built approach to special status in constitution making and interest group politics found in the Charlottetown accord.

We started this process once more with the Calgary declaration. Nine of the ten premiers gathered in good faith in Calgary in the summer of 1997 to examine ways to once again begin as a federation to talk about the need for reform of our constitutional framework to include all Canadians, including westerners and Quebecers. The premiers came up with the five principles of the Calgary declaration as a framework for discussion. They encouraged their various legislatures to engage in an exhaustive process of consultation.

All those provincial governments went to their constituencies. Through a variety of techniques which included public opinion polls, focus groups, town hall meetings, information circulars, surveys, brochures, Internet sites and special committees, each provincial government reviewed the input from the public and each premier reported back to their fellow premiers.

We had the beginning of a bottom up process for reform of the federation and the Constitution. Unfortunately no similar effort was undertaken by the federal government. When my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona asked the government whether it intended to engage in such consultations in the province of Quebec, the answer was no. There was no such plan.

We as the official opposition assumed the responsibility to consult with Quebecers. We mailed an information circular on the Calgary declaration to a quarter of a million homes in the province of Quebec seeking input on the declaration. We conducted a poll and held public meetings. We generally did whatever we could within our limited resources to get public feedback.

This is why we have put the motion before the House. We feel the government has been cavalier and indifferent at best to the Calgary declaration, which by no means is perfect. It includes elements of deep concern to many Canadians. Many people are concerned that the unique characteristics clause may be some day interpreted to confer special legal privileges on a particular province.

Notwithstanding, most Canadians support the general direction of consultation, the principle of equality of provinces under the law and the principle of rebalancing powers as the premiers further manifested in their social union agreement in Saskatoon earlier this year.

The motion comes before this place simply to ask the government to show the House and to show all Canadians what, if anything, it has done, said and thought about or how it has consulted Canadians in the way of public opinion polls and other mechanisms with respect to the Calgary declaration.

It is important. This should not just be regarded as some sleepy motion. It is critically important that we get the process right at the front end, that we do not once again find ourselves as a country in the backwaters of the constitutional elite brokerage deal making that occurred at Meech Lake and Charlottetown. It is absolutely critical that we know exactly what the Government of Canada has done, said and plans to do with respect to the constitutional future of the country and reform of the federation.

While speaking to the motion I would also point out it is unfortunate, in seeking access to critical information of this nature, that increasingly Canadians and parliamentarians find the legal framework for access to information far too inaccessible. The Access to Information Act passed in parliament in the 1970s has become a joke in terms of guaranteeing real access to government information. It is well known that the bureaucracy has learned how not to comply with the spirit of the act but has managed to twist the letter of the law to its advantage to keep secret government information which should be public.

It is not just a partisan opinion that I express. Some members of the government opposite, including the hon. member for Hamilton—Wentworth, have put forward a comprehensive private member's bill before us to completely overhaul and reform the access to information law so that it will once again put Canada on the leading edge of governments with respect to openness, transparency and accountability. This is an important principle. As someone who used to work at an advocacy organization seeking information on government spending I can say that time after time—

[Gasoline, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we can mark that down as another Liberal evasion to a straight question. Let me try again with this minister.

I asked her who was right, the member or she. Industry experts say it will be a lot more than a cent a litre but my question is we have a respected Liberal member here saying it will be 15 cents a litre, so who is right? Is the minister saying that Liberal member is wrong, yes or no?

[Gasoline, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister of the Environment announced with glee a new tax on gas. She said it would cost Canadian consumers only about a cent a litre. However, a Liberal member, the member for Pickering—Ajax, the respected chairman of the Liberal caucus on gas pricing, said it would cost as much as 15 cents a litre.

Who is right, the minister who says it is a cent a litre or the Liberal member who says it is 15 cents a litre? Which one should we believe?

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks.

She said she visited some of the countries represented at the APEC summit and had seen the economic devastation that trade had brought to those countries.

It is unfortunate that she took the focus off what is a pretty broad consensus about the need for due process in these hearings. The vast majority of people who live in places like Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore would agree that while they are going through an enormous economic turmoil currently, their standard of living has increased exponentially over the last 20 years as a result of international trade. Many tens of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty because of the benefits of trade notwithstanding the current structural difficulties.

While I am sympathetic to the case for legal counsel for the students, the member painted a picture of them as completely altruistic, innocent students expressing their belief in democracy. We know that was certainly the case in many instances. In fact I have carried picket signs outside the Chinese embassy protesting the presence of Jiang Zemin. I joined many people in that moral outrage about human rights abuses.

Surely the member would admit that we should not prejudge the inquiry and that there were some students or even non-students who were members of groups such as the International Socialist Workers Party and other radical organizations who were clearly there to disrupt the summit, posing a security threat and tearing down a security wall separating them from heads of states.

Surely the member would recognize a balanced perspective here, that while there were some legitimate protesters there may also have been at the same time some people who unduly provoked the police.

[The Senate, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is laughing at democracy. Yesterday nearly half a million Albertans cast ballots, the largest result for a candidate in Canadian history. Bert Brown yesterday won more votes; more Canadian citizens cast votes for Bert Brown than have cast votes for this Prime Minister in his entire political career, and he calls it a joke.

Will he apologize to Albertans for his arrogance and his contempt for democracy? Will he appoint one of the elected candidates to the next vacancy in the Senate, yes or no?