Marlene Jennings

[Income Tax Act, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to debate the bill which has been sponsored by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

As everyone in the House is aware, the bill proposes a $3,000 tax deduction for emergency service volunteers. The proposed deduction would be claimed against income from all sources. More specifically, it would apply to those who have given more than 200 hours of volunteer service over the year.

I understand and appreciate the hon. member's intention. Canada's emergency service volunteers provide invaluable services. I share his interest in finding ways to recognize their contribution. However, as parliamentarians we are obligated to all Canadians. On this point, I fear that the hon. member's proposition may go too far. While it is very generous toward emergency service volunteers, it may be perceived as being unfair to other taxpayers who are also volunteers.

If there is a principle upon which our tax system is based, it is that of fairness. Under this general tenet of fairness, a basic principle is that people with comparable incomes should pay comparable amounts of tax. The income tax rule should take into account all sources of income, including the person's earnings from employment, the return on their corporate stocks if they have them, other investments if they have them, and even their government benefits.

I would also go a step further. This income should be counted not only if it is paid in cash, but also if it takes other forms, such as in kind employment benefits. That principle applies for instance when a taxpayer receives an employer provided vehicle, awards or subsidized loans. Under the fairness principle of our tax system, the employee who benefits must declare it and there are taxes to be paid on that.

We must also be mindful of the impact of giving special treatment to income that is paid to emergency service volunteers. I understand that it feels good to be generous to some groups, but we must guard against being perceived as being unfair to other groups.

In this regard, the Income Tax Act provides a reasonable degree of recognition for the important role of emergency service volunteers. These individuals as of now can receive up to $1,000 in financial recognition from a public authority without having to pay any tax. Before 1998 this exemption was targeted at volunteer firefighters and it was limited to $500 annually.

This special provision is fair and reasonable. If a public authority finds reason to provide a small amount to compensate its emergency service volunteers because of the costs they incur in providing their services, the rules essentially say that the government will not diminish the value of this compensation by taxing it. The rules also relieve public authorities of the burden of having to prepare tax information slips for modest amounts they pay to our emergency service volunteers.

I fear that the hon. member's bill would be much more burdensome for volunteer organizations and the volunteers themselves. I do not state that as a fact, but it is an issue that needs to be looked at.

In order to fairly administer this proposal it would require public authorities to count the hours of service provided by each volunteer so that the volunteer, the public authority and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency all know when the eligibility criterion, that is the 200 hours of service, has been surpassed. This could be a burden that could be significant when we consider that there are more than 400,000 emergency service volunteers in Canada.

However, the hon. member's proposal goes much further. It goes beyond just providing recognition to emergency service volunteers and easing administration for public authorities. The proposed $3,000 deduction is a significant amount of money. It would allow emergency service volunteers to receive the equivalent to what would be Ontario's minimum wage of three months pay. In my view this would be difficult to justify to other Canadians who work at low wage jobs.

The House should look at whether emergency service volunteers expect or need financial recognition for their service. Statistics Canada has a done an interesting survey that finds that most Canadians do not appear to expect financial assistance or incentives as a reward for their volunteering. The respondents were more likely to say that they volunteered because they wanted to help a cause in which they believed, they wanted to put their skills and experience to work, or they had been personally affected by the cause that the organization supported.

Seven out of ten Canadians cite time limitations and not financial cost as a reason for not volunteering or not volunteering more.

I recognize that emergency service volunteers want to be recognized for what they do, but given the facts that have been raised by other members that Canada has the highest rate of volunteerism, and many forms of volunteerism, I am concerned about the fact that we are asking the House to put a value on one type of volunteerism as opposed to others.

Our whole fiscal policy as it relates to volunteerism should be looked at and that, in discussion with all Canadians, there should be a weight put on the different types of volunteerism rather than doing it piecemeal.

I only have to think of the 1998 ice storm in Quebec. It was not just in the rural areas that we had volunteers performing emergency services. When I think of my riding, which was the riding on the island of Montreal which was most affected by the ice storm, I think of literally the hundreds of constituents who gave of their time, 10 hours, 15 hours, 18 hours, 20 hours for up to 10 days at a time. We must look at the overall picture in order to determine how our fiscal policy should deal with volunteerism.

Emergency service volunteerism is one piece of that. I would hate to see us move in a piecemeal way, in a way that would cause other volunteers who perform other needed services to the community feel that their contributions were not seen as being as valued, as wanted, or as needed as those provided by emergency service volunteers.

I think this is an interesting idea. However, I think that it may be somewhat premature. We should be looking at our entire fiscal policy as it relates to volunteers in general. We should debate and discuss how we can better recognize not just with awards but with financial recognition if Canadians think that is required and needed, and then weight it.

When I think of people who give up many hours of their time in the urban centres working sometimes in conditions that are not as perilous perhaps on the face of it as emergency service volunteers in the rural areas but possibly perilous in the sense that they may be working with people who suffer from infectious diseases, I think that we need to have that debate. However, the bill is too limiting and therefore I would hesitate to support it. I would like to see a broad discussion and debate on the entire issue.

I wish to thank the member for Lethbridge for raising this issue and allowing us to have at least part of that debate.

[Ethics Counsellor, October 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the member for Dauphin—Swan River is entirely wrong when he states it is a question of trying to get urban votes.

If that were the case, how is it that in my province of Quebec the overwhelming majority of the population--not just the urban population but the population in remote areas--supports gun control and this program?

However, the member asked how it was possible that I could claim that the program was doing well? How about the fact that Canadians are complying and using the services offered by the Canada Firearms Centre? As of today that centre has licensed over--

[Ethics Counsellor, October 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question, but I will address some of the comments made by the member for Dauphin—Swan River concerning the firearms program and its administration.

First, I wish to assure the House and Canadians listening that the program is indeed working. The hon. member spoke about waste of money and talked about $10 million in new money. He clearly knows that is not the case. The $10 million that we voted on last week was money that Parliament had already approved in a previous financial exercise and it was a technical way to ensure that the money carried over into the new fiscal year.

Second, members of the House will recall that on April 14, 2003, the Canada Firearms Centre was transferred to the portfolio of the Solicitor General from the Minister of Justice and on July 31, the centre became an agency.

It is a natural fit for the Solicitor General portfolio. The Solicitor General's main focus is on enhancing public safety and as such no department officials were involved in the delivery of the program between April 14 and April 30. Public servants from the Solicitor General's office were involved.

What are some of the things that the program has managed to do? Let me list them. On May 30, a commissioner of firearms was appointed. The commissioner reports to the Solicitor General and has full authority and accountability to all federally administered elements of the Canadian firearms program.

In addition, the position of registrar of firearms was recently moved from the RCMP to the Canada Firearms Centre. The registrar now reports to the commissioner of firearms.

In addition, in keeping with the government's action plan, announced this past February, the positions of head of the financial branch and head of operations have been staffed.

The Canadian Firearms Centre continues to take steps to improve the management and operation of the program, in order to enhance its efficiency, transparency and service to the legal users of firearms.

For example, licence applications must be completed in 45 days and registration applications in 30 days. Licence and registration applicants can now check their application status on-line. Internet registration remains available at no cost and businesses can now transfer firearms to other businesses and to individuals over the internet.

Canadians support the firearms control program.

[The Environment, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Prime Minister on having received a major award earlier today. The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy presented the Prime Minister with the award for advancing the environmental agenda.

This is the first time in the 33 years of the institute that this particular award has been given. The Prime Minister receives it for his distinguished record on promoting environmental legislation, for creating new national parks in his early years as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and for his ratification of the Kyoto protocol last year.

It is fitting that while the Prime Minister was in Toronto to receive the award, he dedicated the first ever urban national park, Downsview Park.

I am sure my hon. colleagues will join me in congratulating the Prime Minister on receiving this prestigious award.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since I have only seven or eight minutes left, I will try to be brief.

I welcome the opportunity to speak the opposition motion for two reasons.

First, the issue of healthy and prosperous municipalities is in my view of real national importance and can benefit from this House's insight and ideas. There is no question that Canada's cities and communities face significant challenges in providing the level of service and support that their citizens deserve, as has been mentioned several times in the House. Perhaps working in partnership with provinces and territories a share of the federal gas tax might offer an avenue to provide some of the additional resources that the cities are looking for and require. It is certainly, in my view, worth considering.

This leads me to the second reason I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate. I believe it would be both timely and useful to provide the House with an important element of context about our government's fiscal and tax performance, a context that unfortunately has not been provided by members of the opposition. It is a context that should frame any discussion that touches on federal taxation.

As you know, since we first took office in 1993, healthy financial management and the fairness of the income tax system have been two of our highest priorities as a government. The two are closely linked. We understood right from the start that we could never lighten the overall tax burden of Canadians if we continued to accumulate deficits that eat away 36 cents in interest charges from every dollar of taxpayers' money.

Accumulating deficits by borrowing is nothing but a twisted way to bring in more income tax by adding interest charges. That is why, in the early years of our mandate, although we introduced targeted tax relief—for families with children, for example—we put our efforts into the difficult task of regaining control over federal spending. We have achieved this goal—I think even the opposition cannot deny that—and in 1997-98 produced the first federal budget surplus in Canada, after 28 consecutive years of deficits.

Some might ask what this has to do with federal taxation. I would argue that the answer should be obvious. It was only after we had put the country's books in order that we could then begin to bring down the tax burden for all Canadians, and bring it down we did.

Very quickly here are a couple of initiatives that the government has taken to bring down the tax burden for all Canadians.

In the 2000 budget we launched a five year, $100 billion tax reduction plan, the largest in Canadian history. The benefits of this plan are already clear and concrete. It provided tax relief of $17 billion in 2001 and $20 billion in 2002. This will continue to grow, providing further tax relief of $24 billion this year and rising to more than $30 billion in 2004.

We also restored full inflation indexation of the personal tax system as of January 1, 2000. This means that inflation no longer represents an automatic and hidden tax increase. As well, as of January 1, 2001, personal income tax rates for all taxpayers were lowered. The 17% tax rate was lowered to 16%. The middle rate, which had been 26% in 1999, was lowered to 22% and the top rate was reduced from 29% to 26% on income between $60,000 and $100,000.

That means, for individual Canadians and families, by 2004-2005 we will have reduced federal personal income taxes by 21%. That is one-fifth on average. Families with children will benefit even more with an average tax saving of 27%. However that is not all.

We have also reduced the general corporate income tax rate from 28% to 23% and have drafted legislation to reduce it to 21% next year.

To support small businesses and entrepreneurs, we also included an increase in the small business deduction limit from $200,000 to $300,000 over four years, resulting in an annual savings of up to $9,000 for many local Canadian companies.

I cannot go through all of it, but we have done much in order to reduce the tax burden on Canadians and to ensure that we can continue to fulfill our electoral promises, including on the--

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Terrorism, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear, the member is absolutely wrong when he says that our law enforcement agencies are not protecting Canadians. Canadians share and believe in our national law enforcement agencies.

There is a clear process for listing entities. We will follow the process and we are following the process. When we have security and criminal intelligence that follows the process that allows us to list, we will.

[Terrorism, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a legislative process has been put in place to deal with the global threat posed by terrorism.

The Criminal Code at this time contains 31 entities and the assessment process for other possible listings continues and is ongoing.

[Sex Offender Registry, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of fact, the member should recall that in Calgary on November 6, 2002, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers approved the registration scheme as set out in Bill C-23.

The bill was then tabled in the House on December 11, 2002. When the hon. member says there was no consensus, he is not stating the facts. The fact is there was a consensus.

[Sex Offender Registry, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on the other side knows very well that Bill C-23, the sex offender registry, was based on a consensus of all federal, provincial and territorial ministers.

They are meeting this week and should all the jurisdictions come to a conclusion that there should be retroactivity, the Solicitor General is more than open to discussing it, but all jurisdictions will have to agree.