Linda Duncan

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech with great interest. We have been criticized on this side for raising matters other than those in the bill. We heard a great deal about matters other than those in the bill and matters that probably should be in the bill.

I have taken the time to go through some of these treaties, with which the quite short statute deals. It raises a number of questions for me. For example, if we look at the treaty with Poland, article 24(3), it says:

In no case shall the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 be construed... to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and the administrative practice of that...Contracting State...to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or...to supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial...secret or trade process... information...disclosure...contrary to public policy...

I see the same kind of provisions in the Luxembourg treaty.

It raises the question for me as to what mechanism does the government use to go about enforcing this statute against these countries and what has its experience been in trying to enforce these provisions with the other countries, for example, China? Does it have such an agreement with China?

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the enthusiasm that he puts to what is described as a pretty straightforward, not terribly exciting bill. He can turn any topic into a subject everyone wants to pay attention to.

Those watching the proceedings today would have to be a little appalled. What the government members of the day were celebrating earlier on, before we got into debating this bill, which is supposed to be all about collecting taxes, was tax freedom day. Therefore, I would like to ask the member how he feels about how seriously taxpayers in Canada are going to take the government on how serious it is about collecting taxes?

Conservatives like to stand up every day and if they do not say it once they say it a dozen times that they are going to lower everyone's taxes. One of the things that troubles me is the amount of money not paid in taxes. That is free use of our resources. The excuse always is we will keep the royalties low on resources because we get the revenue in taxes. Then we find out that not all those taxes are being paid. I wonder if the member could speak to that.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak, I would like to reply to my colleague's inappropriate statement.

Any Canadian has the opportunity to approach Revenue Canada and negotiate a payment of taxes over time, which is the situation here. It is time the Conservatives stop slurring hon. members of the House.

However, the issue here is the rising loss of revenue to the country by people who evade taxation. The member raised something very interesting. My colleague asked why the government did not go a step further, for example, along the lines of what the U.K. did with Switzerland. It reached an agreement where the U.K. could recoup up to 30% of the taxes that should have been paid to it.

When the government entertained these agreements, why did it not take a harder line in what should be included in the agreement? Do the Conservatives have a shopping list such that they have agreements with 999 countries, or are they actually seeking to improve the system of taxation so we can recover taxes and not have tax evasion in our country?

[Petitions, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions as well that I wish to table for Development and Peace. The petitioners call on Parliament to adopt the following policy goals:

Demonstrate international responsibility by recommitting Canada to contribute 0.7% GDP to official development assistance; prioritize responsive funding to those NGOs that support work with CIDA; and, in the spirit of global solidarity, provide in full the funding of $49.2 million requested by Development and Peace over the next five years.

[Petitions, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from people from St. Albert, Edmonton and Calgary who want greater action to be taken by Parliament on dealing with cluster munitions.

The petitioners want amendments to Bill S-10 to close the loopholes, making it clear no Canadians should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions, including explicit prohibition on investment in cluster munition production, and to add mention of the positive obligations Canada has assumed in signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

[Navigable Waters Protection Act, June 10th, 2013]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-529, An Act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Slave River).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table my bill, an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act for Slave River. I wish to thank my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, for seconding this bill, which is of great significance to his constituents.

The purpose is both simple and necessary. It will add the mighty Slave River, flowing from Alberta to the Northwest Territories, to the substantially diminished list of rivers the government has deemed worthy of protection.

According to David Livingstone, former director of Indian and Northern Affairs' water division:

Life in the North has always revolved around water in an intimate way that many other jurisdictions have lost. The value of water in the North is the same as the value of water to people who live in deserts: central to life.

This bill actually amends the 2012 Budget Implementation Act. Why? The government, absent any advance consultations, including with those directly impacted, used its budget bill to further eviscerate this century-and-a-half-year-old protection law.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act, originally enacted to guarantee navigation rights, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as an important trigger for federal action to protect rivers and lakes. The law, pre-evisceration, served as key trigger for federation assessment and permitting.

The decision to remove protective measures for the Slave River was made absent any consultations with the aboriginal peoples who have a long-standing connection to the river. In so doing, the government violated its overriding constitutional duty of prior consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title.

According to Cheyeanne Paulette, former chief of Smith's Landing First Nation, located on the banks of the Slave River:

The Slave River has sustained our people since time immemorial. We have a vision for the river that ensures it will continue to be a home for our people for all time, and we know many other Northerners share our vision.

For centuries the river has provided the major transportation route between Fort Fitzgerald in the Northwest Territories and Fort Chipewyan. According to elder François Paulette, who was raised on the river, the Slave River is considered sacred and is to be respected.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Parliamentary Budget Officer Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to speak in support of Bill C-476, tabled by the member for Outremont and leader of the official opposition.

Bill C-476, once enacted, would create an independent Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, separating it from the Library of Parliament where it is now; broaden the PBO's mandate and access to relevant information; require annual reports to the House of Commons and Senate; create a streamlined non-partisan process for appointment; and finally, ensure that the PBO is capable of understanding and working in both official languages.

Why are these proposed changes to the legislated mandate for the PBO so critical? The government created the PBO to support its once widely touted new transparent, accountable and open government. In fact, the Conservatives' 2006 electoral platform committed to create an independent parliamentary budget office authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation's finances and trends in the national economy. As stated by the finance minister in 2006:

Canadians deserve to know the true state of their economy and to live within a budget which is based on accurate, open and honest figures. We must put an end once and for all to the previous government's habit of getting it wrong. Governments cannot be held to account if Parliament and Canadians do not know the real state of public finances.

The Prime Minister, in speaking of the PBO in 2006, stated, “Such a body would ensure that the government is genuinely accountable for taxpayers’ dollars and that we maintain fiscal discipline at the federal level.”

Now flash forward to 2013, where the selfsame Minister of Finance has had quite a change of heart now that the rigorous analysis that he once so enthusiastically supported has now exposed many problems. The finance minister made an accusatory comment about the PBO to the effect that he was wandering off from his mandate of reporting to Parliament on “how the government is doing in its budgeting”.

We note, as my colleague said, the comments by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, that he is deeply chagrined and in fact has left the Conservative Party because it has strayed from its principles of openness and transparency and the members have morphed into what they formerly criticized.

Indeed, despite these early endorsements for open government and a strong role for the PBO, seven years later we witness case after case where the government has refused PBO requests for information necessary to delivery his statutory mandate including: estimated costs for the Afghan war, estimated costs for the F-35 fighter jets, the estimated deficit, sustainability of the OAS program and estimated impacts of cuts to the federal service on continued delivery of front-line services.

The mandate and services of the PBO have been found invaluable to the ability of MPs to do their job scrutinizing government estimates and spending. The PBO mandate appears to be quite clear to most, with the apparent exception of the very government that created the office. What is the mandate? The PBO was created in 2006 with the enactment of the Financial Accountability Act. This mandate is clearly prescribed in law “to provide objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy”. The PBO is also mandated to undertake research and assist committees in their review and analysis of estimates. Clearly, to deliver this mandate, the PBO must have ready and open access to financial and economic data.

Accessibility to all information has regrettably become a matter of ongoing contention for the former PBO. He was ultimately forced to seek a court ruling due to access denials. The court referral related to requests from the leader of the official opposition seeking the PBO's analysis of the effect of cuts to the federal public service on front-line services. Here is what the court ruled vis-à-vis the mandate of the PBO:

The Parliament of Canada has, by statute, mandated its budget officer to, among other things, “estimate the financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction” when requested to do so by any member of the House of Commons or any Senator.... In order to give effect to that mandate, subject to certain exceptions, section 79.3... the Parliamentary Budget Officer by request to the deputy head of a department, or delegate, is entitled to “…free and timely access to any financial or economic data in the possession of the department that are required for the performance of his or her mandate.”

In the course of my role on the government operations committee, we undertook, as well, a review of how members of Parliament could begin to do a more effective job of review of estimates and spending. In doing so, we heard from a number of experts.

One of the worldwide experts that has stated support for a strong parliamentary budget officer is the OECD. Our report noted that the OECD found that the best practices for budget transparency required that parliamentarians had the opportunity and the resources to effectively examine any fiscal report they deem necessary.

Our community heard from, among others, Dr. Joachim Wehner. Dr. Wehner is associate professor of public policy at the London School of Economic and Political Science. He testified that in order to improve scrutiny of estimates and supply:

The first...is to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.... Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change...in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity.

He added, though, that based upon his experience with similar officers in other jurisdictions, the role of the PBO could have been further strengthened if made a full officer of Parliament, with total access to all relevant information.

Also, Canadian expert Dr. David Good, professor of the School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, testified to our committee:

First, I would make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full agent of Parliament to assist parliamentarians and committees. I think the role and mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to be clarified and strengthened by making the office legislatively separate and independent of the Library of Parliament, thereby operating as a full agent of Parliament.

Accessibility to all information, regrettably, became a matter of ongoing contention for the current PBO. He was ultimately, as I mentioned, forced to seek a court ruling. That court ruling was related to a request from the leader of the official opposition.

I can personally attest to the value of the reporting and analysis provided by the parliamentary budget officer. My participation in the parliamentary study on scrutiny of estimates and supply, and subsequent examination of government priorities and spending, has opened my eyes to the disconnect between the information the government is willing to reveal and the information parliamentarians actually require to make informed decisions on spending taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

As elected members of Parliament, we are meant to be stewards of the public purse. We can choose to make informed decisions. A strengthened mandate for the parliamentary budget officer, as provided in Bill C-476, could offer that window.

I encourage all members of this House to vote in support of the member for Outremont's bill, Bill C-476, create an independent Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, broaden his mandate, require annual reports and create streamlined, non-partisan processes for appointments.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the community pasture program is a 75-year-old success story of resource conservation that helped smaller western farmers thrive in the face of market uncertainty and that conserved threatened grasslands.

Saskatchewan farmers want the pastures saved, and they fear the lands will fall into the hands of speculators. They just need time to pursue options. Will the Minister of Agriculture commit to stopping the sell-off and support farmer-led efforts to save these lands critical to their livelihood?

[Public Works and Government Services, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not only has Public Works been charged, and is soon to be sentenced, in the case of the boiler explosion that killed and injured workers, but it has been revealed that failure to obey health and safety laws is systemic. The truth is out on a pattern of neglect for repeated warnings about unqualified contractors, code violations, and reports by both workers and health and safety officers.

The buck stops with the minister. When can we expect the minister to make compliance with worker safety a priority?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member spoke of apprenticeships and all the government is doing to encourage apprenticeships, yet it is reported that, despite the supposed measures, less than 50% of employers are providing apprenticeships.

By the way, members may not be aware, but apparently the government is the largest purchaser of construction activity in this country. Therefore, the building trades and construction workers are calling upon the government to actually require that all federal RFP bidders be required to provide a certain percentage of apprenticeships.

I wonder if the member would advise if he is willing to speak to his government and support such a directive.