John Duncan

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions on today's motion with members of the British Columbia government. They are certainly highly interested, not only in the debate but in the vote on Tuesday. This is just such a natural, positive action to be taking that it is incredible we have not reached here before now, despite many attempts by the opposition to make it happen, as I have said.

I will mention that there are three components to this fuel tax: the excise tax, which we are asking to be earmarked; the deficit-fighting tax, although the deficit has been gone for five years, so we think that should be eliminated; and the GST, which is a tax on a tax, much of it, and which is most inappropriately charged and is an incentive for higher gas prices because higher gas prices lead to higher revenues for the federal government, largely through the GST. It is a perverse incentive for higher prices.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiment, but I would like to disagree with the premise of the question from the standpoint that this federal government always wants to be earmarking money to go to the provincial governments.

We are suggesting something very different. We are suggesting vacating tax room so that the provinces and the municipalities, the local governments, have the ability to use these fuel tax revenues for infrastructure needs. We only have to look at other jurisdictions such as the U.S., where fuel taxes are collected on the basis that they will be used to fund transportation infrastructure. That is what happens. That is why they have a very successful infrastructure system and we do not.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today is an official opposition supply day and I am delighted to speak to the motion.

The federal fuel tax issue is a prime example of a major irritant that has been allowed to continue since the government came to power in 1993 despite many attempts by the Canadian Alliance, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and federal and provincial road builders to get the government to stop the process of taking billions of fuel tax dollars from Canadian motorists and not returning it to transportation infrastructure.

The statistics for my own province of British Columbia are illustrative. From 1998 to 2001, federal fuel taxes and the federal GST collected $6.4 billion from B.C. drivers and returned $31 million, roughly 0.5%.

Just as an indicator of the taxing power fuel taxes represent to the federal government, we witnessed earlier this year essentially a 10% increase at the pumps. This 10% increase represented a windfall to the federal government in GST fuel revenues alone of $350 million. The GST on fuel is for the most part a tax on a tax. That is most inappropriate.

On May 2, 2001, I embarrassed the federal transport minister by pointing out that in the previous year the United States had committed to spending more in British Columbia by upgrading B.C. highways at border crossings than did the federal government in all of British Columbia.

In the previous year, the federal government returned 0.5% of fuel tax revenues to British Columbia highways. The transport minister excused all of this by responding that it was not his fault because highways were a provincial responsibility. That being the case, then it is only logical to call on the federal authorities to vacate the federal fuel tax room to lower levels of government for their infrastructure requirements.

This is essential to our well-being and will address the fiscal imbalance that exists between the levels of government in Canada. Instead of fixing the fiscal imbalances, the former federal finance minister and now Liberal leader cut transfer payments to the provinces and made the situation worse.

The Canadian Alliance recognizes that changes have occurred over time and our institutional arrangements have not kept pace, unlike the government. Every attempt to get the federal government to stop the current reign of terror on federal taxation of fuel has been hindered by the federal Liberals.

Our industry and transportation critics have created a policy for the Canadian Alliance which was adopted by our parliamentary caucus and ratified by our national council. It is a policy we will run on in the next election, and it is a policy we will implement as government.

I can summarize our position quite well by including an excerpt from an address by the Canadian Alliance leader to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' annual meeting in Winnipeg on June 2, 2003. Our leader proposed:

--that the federal government permanently vacate a portion of the federal gas tax--say three to five cents a litre--and allow provinces the option of collecting that revenue. In order to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes, the transfer of these revenues to provinces and on to municipalities would be conditional on signed agreements that these resources would be used for infrastructure.

This method of funding municipalities meets the criteria set out by the [Federation of Canadian Municipalities]: It would provide a reliable and stable revenue source for infrastructure. It would be as transparent and visible as constitutionally possible. It would have zero additional administrative and compliance costs--provinces already have infrastructure programs and collect gas tax revenues. It would be efficient--additional resources could be allocated to regional and local priorities. And it would be equitable--these revenues would become part of the equalization formula to ensure that all provinces receive the same per capita share of gas tax revenues. More importantly, this approach promises a worthwhile level of funding.

In the last federal budget, 100 million dollars were pledged for infrastructure for cities--not enough, as the [Federation of Canadian Municipalities] pointed out, for a single kilometre of subway line in Toronto or three interchanges in Calgary.

In contrast, transferring three cents per litre of gas taxes for infrastructure would mean an immediate, annual injection of $1.3 billion per year.

If we do the math, clearly the Canadian Alliance has a position that is on side with municipalities, provinces and the motoring public. The federal fuel tax regime is irrational and counterproductive. At every turn, however, the government has stymied our efforts to change this federal fuel taxing behaviour.

This is what the current finance minister had to say earlier this year when he rejected any notion of amending fuel taxes:

...I know that the provinces really like the tax points, but sometimes, they forget about them. They really like them because they want us to impose the taxes and then let them spend the money.

What money? During June of this year he stated further:

...I do not favour the suggestion that the federal government vacate the fuel tax...it is foregone revenue without accountability...it undermines the vital partnership that we must foster between and among levels of government.

That is not very encouraging.

On May 2, 2001, I asked the transportation minister the following question:

Last year the federal government collected $750 million from British Columbia fuel taxes and spent $408,000 on B.C. highways. That works out to the grand total of one-twentieth of one per cent of revenues returned to British Columbia highways. Why is the federal government gouging taxpayers and ignoring their highways?

Here is what the minister had to say:

I want to remind the hon. member that highway building in this country is the responsibility of the provincial government.

This incredible response was followed up by the finance minister's response to my further question, which was:

...the federal government collects federal fuel taxes. The provinces spend on highways what they collect in provincial fuel taxes. In 1998-99 the federal government collected over $4.7 billion in gas taxes and spent only 4% of that across Canada. It is called highway robbery. When is the government going to commit to fund a national highway strategy...?

The former finance minister, who may or may not have had a recent conversion on this issue, had this to say:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the Canadian government receives tax revenues from a multitude of sources and those revenues are then invested. They have been invested...in the British Columbia health care system...in the education system...research and development throughout British Columbia.

That is not very encouraging for infrastructure.

The reality is that change is long overdue. We have a national highway system in Canada but no national highway strategy. We have long unresolved grievances about a lack of federal commitment to infrastructure. We have major transportation needs identified, many resulting from federal facilities, such as Roberts Bank and Vancouver International Airport.

As well, we have had serious problems at the provincial level in terms of funding because of the softwood lumber dispute, SARS, BSE, forest fires and hurricanes, heavy burdens indeed.

I will conclude with one sentence. The motion put forth by the Alliance today is consistent with an earlier motion we put forward on June 12, 2003, which was defeated by the government, and I hope for better this time.

[Citizenship and Immigration, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has put people's lives at risk and now he is hiding behind a pending court decision, but the issue of the betrayal of Tao Mi and others by the Canadian government is completely separate from the issues before the court.

I am simply asking why the minister betrayed Tao Mi and other witnesses in absolute breach of undertakings by his department. What is the minister now going to do to protect Tao Mi and other Chinese witnesses?

[Citizenship and Immigration, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister must answer why Chinese citizens were betrayed by his officials and became subject to torture or worse by Chinese police.

These residents of China provided evidence in the Lai immigration hearing in Vancouver through a Canadian lawyer. The minister's officials promised confidentiality to protect them. Unbelievably, the minister turned around and betrayed the identity of these trusting witnesses.

Why does the minister's word mean nothing?

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, why is this matter under review? This is an outrageous request.

The minister cut the AFN budget by two-thirds based on political disagreements with the previous grand chief. The message the minister is sending by entertaining this outrageous request is that favouritism is more important than the desperate living conditions on some of our reserves. $1.2 million could purchase shelter and infrastructure, not fancy digs in Ottawa.

Why will the minister not just reject this request right now?

[Aboriginal Affairs, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the worst living conditions in Canada continue to be found on too many native reserves. Meanwhile, the Assembly of First Nations grand chief, Phil Fontaine, has asked Indian affairs for $1.2 million for new offices and renovations. When reserve residents are without basic shelter and water, this demonstrates out of touch leadership.

Why is the minister even considering this outrageous request from the new AFN leadership?

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood there would be 10 minutes of questions and comments. Are we entering into debate?

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill C-34 which is an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and other acts in consequence in respect of providing for the appointment of a Senate ethics officer and providing for the appointment of an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons regarding the conduct of its members.

There is a jurisdiction in Canada that has really been at the forefront in terms of conflict of interest and behaviour of its elected officials and that is the province of British Columbia. I would like to quote from a commentary prepared by Gregory J. Levine, who is general counsel for the Office of the Ombudsman for the province of British Columbia. The following is an interesting capsule from his commentary on Bill C-34:

The current package is part of a dance of denial, a dithering that does not instill confidence. The Canadian people deserve better. What circumstances demand are clear rules forthrightly enforced by an ethics commissioner who is truly independent and powerful.

In other words, the bill simply does not cut it. It was brought forward in June of last year amid allegations of scandal and corruption in the seventh year of the reign of an ethics counsellor who has become known in the media as a lapdog, not a watchdog. He was appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister. There are multiple scandals which have never been gotten to the bottom of and the cynicism within the public has expanded over the term of the Prime Minister. In many ways the current Prime Minister's legacy will be all about the abuses that were allowed to occur in this place despite the fact that for the first time there was somebody whose mandate was ethics. It was an abysmal failure.

That sets the stage for the fact that this legislation really does not do it. While the high-sounding bill would suggest that it is addressing a real problem in an objective manner, the reality is quite different. It is essentially smoke and mirrors.

Any of the scandals that have occurred around the government would not be addressed by the new scenario. The ethics commissioner envisioned by the bill for the House of Commons would not be independent. The ethics counsellor who has been in place for a number of years was not independent and neither would he be under the new scenario.

What has become abundantly clear is that the current Prime Minister has placed his personal interests and the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada ahead of the interests of Canadians and the national interest.

I can point to the loophole we addressed last week. The Bloc supply day motion had to do with the well known Barbados loophole utilized by the former finance minister's company, CSL. We now know that hundreds of Canadian companies are utilizing that loophole and exploiting it.

We know that this was all a part of the Liberal Party of Canada's courting of some interests within the business community. These friends of the former finance minister were well-informed as to the existence of the loophole. This glaring exception was allowed to continue to and it became and continues to be a glaring problem for the country.

The bill would not address the democratic deficit. It would contribute to it, from the standpoint that our committees are still overwhelmed by government members. We know that in almost every case appeals to the ethics commissioner have been largely not useful.

This initiative would create two new officers, which I consider to be largely window-dressing. One could ask the question: Why all of a sudden are backbench and opposition members of Parliament somehow responsible to someone who reports essentially to cabinet and the Prime Minister? This is ripe for abuse. As an opposition member of Parliament, I believe this is ripe for my privileges being abused and is an inherent conflict of interest in itself.

If we want to look at an example of how we could change all that, let us make an officer of Parliament who is elected in the same way as the House of Commons elects our Speaker. That is the model we should follow. Not the model that was promoted in this legislation or the model that the previous speaker suggested this morning. Let us fix this because what we have in place in this bill is completely inadequate.

The ethics counsellor envisioned by this would be appointed by the Prime Minister, would report to the Prime Minister and would be responsible to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. That essentially is still the way it is.

This conflict of interest is so obvious as to laughable. It breaks the Liberal red book promise of 1993 and has thoroughly discredited the office, in the public mind. One can only assume that the Prime Minister wishes to divert attention onto these two new ethics officers without fixing the crucial ethical questions which hang over the Prime Minister and his cabinet, despite government spin.

The Prime Minister would make the choice of this new commissioner. There would be so-called consultation with the leaders of the parties in the House and there would be a confirming vote in the House. Of course all this means that the Prime Minister would determine who would be appointed and the government members of Parliament would vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. Remember, the Prime Minister likes to say that he consulted with opposition leaders before appointing Howard Wilson, as his personal ethics commissioner, and we all know where that has led.

Contrast this with the red book promise and the way the House of Commons chooses the Speakers, as I just mentioned: a secret ballot and a Speaker who is responsible to the members, not to the Prime Minister, not to the cabinet, not to the Prime Minister and cabinet.

One might ask the question: What would happen under the legislation to address any of the scandals that have plagued the government? Would the new arrangement somehow make any of that any different? I think it is very clear that it would not prevent this activity. Nor would it make it any more subject to exposure.

I am very concerned about potential abuse of the new power because we now have a situation where complaints from members of Parliament, or in the case of the Senate officer, must be acted upon. We see, now that opposition members of Parliament are covered under the new umbrella, an opportunity for misbehaviour on the part of the government which basically controls the process. Through the Prime Minister and cabinet, there is now an opportunity to manipulate this with a timing such that it can be used for mischief making during critical times such as elections. We think this is a very obvious abuse and a singular enough reason why it needs to be changed.

Bill C-34 would also create a situation that would be problematic from the standpoint that we would now have the growth of two standards, one for the House of Commons and one for the Senate, simply because we would have two different appointees. Objective concerns about the bill have been expressed by people dealing with conflict of interest in ethics. They suggest this is very problematic. I subscribe to that as well.

Another issue deals with payment for services. The remuneration for both officers is to be set by cabinet. This is also a law inconsistent with removing a conflict of interest and government control over this process because obviously remuneration levels can be used as a lever. The mere fact that can occur or would have the appearance of being able to occur is enough to suggest that it is a conflict of interest and that should not be allowed to occur. Therefore it is one more reason why we would oppose the legislation.

The two individuals who would be given these new positions would also be given the rank of deputy heads of a government department for the purpose of operating their respective offices. It is very unclear and completely unaddressed as to what this really means in terms of independence because it would suggest that they are tied to government process. Once again, we have to make a clear distinction here.

We are opposition members of Parliament. We are not members of the government. This is another conflict of interest. This is a natural problem. This has not been well thought out. This is not addressed appropriately in the way the legislation is put forward. I object because I believe this is one more way in which opposition members of Parliament's privileges are being abused potentially by the legislation.

We currently have rules regarding our conduct within the Parliament of Canada Act which pertain to the Senate and the House of Commons and the members. These rules of conduct prohibit involvement in government contracts, prohibit employment in government services and prohibit us from taking money with respect to issues before the Senate or the House of Commons. Many of these rules will be repealed under the bill. Once again, objective, independent analysis of the bill suggests that we are weakening the rules of conduct with this proposed legislation and not strengthening them.

Once again this gives currency to my opening statement which is that the bill is an abysmal performance that does not do what it purports to do in terms of strengthening our ethics situation which we know has been very tarnished by the performance of the government over the last 10 years, 10 years next month. Those are some of the broader aspects of the bill.

I would like to remind people who are listening to the debate of some of the problems that are inherent in how the government has been operating. For example, we have heard major criticism in the last week or two about Charles Boyer and his expense accounts and the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage signed for every one of his expense accounts on the account of the taxpayers.

This has really resonated with the public. When George Radwanski carried on this kind of behaviour, the statement I got from the public was “Under this government as a senior employee we expect that kind of behaviour”. However when they saw the same kind of behaviour from a junior employee, directly approved by a minister who should know better, it drove them wild. There is no direction from the government to change it.

As a matter of fact, I quote from the Winnipeg Sun . It states, “Leading the nation by shining example, [the current finance minister] has given his blessing to fellow cabinet colleagues who routinely file hefty expense claims without providing a single receipt. Heck, he does it himself”. Other ministers are mentioned also.

There are many other references to ethical lapses in the government. We know Alfonso Gagliano, the former minister of public works, now enshrined in Denmark, was never ever caught up in his ethical lapses because the Prime Minister got him out of the country. We have seen similar behaviour and the ethics commissioner has certainly not been as independent as we would like to see.

In summary, the bill does not do it. Canadians deserve better and parliamentarians deserve better.

[Question No. 214, September 15th, 2003]

From 1994 to the end of 2002: ( a ) what is the total number of Export Development Canada (EDC) loans that have been placed in the category of “allowance for losses on loans, loan commitments and guarantees”, or otherwise written off on an annual basis and later collected; and ( b ) what amount of money has been recovered for these written off loans by year?