Rick Casson

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the statement of the Leader of the Opposition because it honestly reflects the irresponsible spending habits of the Liberal government and the lost opportunities for not just my own constituents but for constituents in communities across the country.

It is the Liberal government's addiction to spending that drove our taxes higher than ever. The myth that there is a Liberal tax reduction is simply that, a myth. Canada's blooming surpluses are all the evidence we need to prove that Canadians are being grossly overtaxed. Where are the breaks for the majority of Canadians? Where are the benefits for those who have worked the hardest to scrape by and foot the ever growing taxes levied by the government?

Working Canadians have the right to ask: If the Liberal government has cut taxes then why can they not see it on their paycheques? This backward budget reflected backward Liberal promises: $2 billion scattered on an unspecified Kyoto measure but a mere band-aid for the crumbling armed forces.

The Canadian Alliance agrees with the Auditor General and many other organizations that call for an immediate increase of $2 billion per year for the defence budget. The Liberal commitment of $600 million per year falls far short of what is necessary to sustain our armed forces, let alone to start to rebuild it.

While the finance minister has promised to fill the accountability loopholes created by his predecessor, once again the Liberal track record speaks for itself.

How can the government be trusted to implement massive new spending increases for nearly every department, when it has proven its lack of management experience which has cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars in cost overruns? Need we remind the House of the gun registry's severe mismanagement and incompetence. Bad management turns good intentions into Liberal waste. It is simply cruel to Canadians in need to promise grand new schemes that will never pan out due to mismanagement.

The Canadian Alliance would immediately stop runaway Liberal spending. We support targeting most new spending only to priority areas neglected under the Liberal's watch. We agree with the increases in health funding announced in the new health accord but in general the Canadian Alliance believes that spending should only increase at a rate matching increases in population and prices.

There are a few other specific points I would like to bring to the attention of the House with regard to the budget.

We believe child care options should be given to parents, not to bureaucrats. We support a $3,000 per child deduction for families, allowing them to choose the best child care option for their children.

Regarding the national child benefit, the Liberals could give this benefit to low income families with one hand, then tax thousands of dollars with the other hand. If they are so concerned about Canada's working poor, why do the Liberals tax them so heavily? Heavy Liberal taxes are collected through rising CPP premiums, overcharges on EI and low income contingent GST credits.

Since the money is on the table for health care, now is the time for real reform to take place. The Canadian Alliance will hold the federal and provincial governments accountable to ensure that new health spending buys real change, not just more of the status quo.

The Liberals have already spent over $3 billion on Kyoto with no results to show for it. Simply throwing more money at it has led to Liberal waste and misuse. The Canadian Alliance supports targeted funding for new green technologies that will bring real environmental benefits.

A 40% reduction in the air tax is a good start but it will continue to discourage air travel in Canada. This tax should be eliminated, not reduced. That speaks for itself with the trouble in which our air industry is.

The government's move to increase RRSP limits to $18,000 by 2006, increase the small business deduction limit to $300,000, eliminate the capital tax over five years and lower the resource tax rate in line with the general corporate rate are positive steps except they are being implemented too slowly and fall short of what is actually needed.

Despite the good intentions the Liberal government has suggested in the budget, I remain opposed to it due to the government's terrible reputation for mismanagement and incompetence. How can Canadians place their trust in a free spending, non-responsible Liberal government when we know we will be paying for these actions for years to come?

In closing I want to mention that last Friday I was at the opening of a new library addition in the town of Coaldale in my riding. It was pointed out to me at that time that the federal government pointed citizens to libraries to use them for Internet access to fill out the gun registry, to do their income tax and to send in things like that. However there is little support from the federal government for libraries. I indicated that I would bring this to the attention of the government and that I would be do more in the future on that issue. This is one area that some of the money could have gone to improve the life of all Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of responsibility that I rise today to address Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill and to voice my opposition to the bill. I will get into some of the reasons why as I go through the bill.

In simple terms for all Canadians the bill is a blueprint for the Liberals to spend freely taxpayers' hard earned dollars, establish a legacy for the retiring Prime Minister and create an even larger and more bureaucratic government. The last time I checked with any of my constituents, none of these priorities were at the top of their wish lists.

The Canadian Alliance believes that rewarding the taxpayer should be the primary goal in the country. The Canadian Alliance has not forgotten who pays the bills in Ottawa. It is a shame that the Liberals have.

In fact it is the middle to low income Canadians who need all the help and benefits that a strong federal government should provide for them. There was certainly more than enough surplus to finally reward these hard working Canadian families by lowering the GST and personal income taxes. Instead, the government has ignored the priorities of average Canadians and has created more slush funds for grand scale promises that inevitably will be mismanaged.

Before I jump ahead of myself to oppose the irresponsible spending promises of the Liberal government, let me take a moment to realistically look at the figures of the budget.

The budget announces $17.4 billion in new spending initiatives over the next three years but cuts taxes by only $2.3 billion. This represents an increase in program spending of 88%, an 88% increase in spending in comparison to a mere 12% for tax reduction. We cannot afford in Canada to keep building budgets that outstrip more than the economy is growing. By outstripping growth, we will be back in a deficit position if we continue to do this.

Why does the government consistently misspend and mismanage money from the taxpayers today, while ensuring that taxpayers tomorrow will be paying for these programs indefinitely. When I look at newly born granddaughter, I do not want her to foot the bills of this free spending Liberal government in the years to come.

The new finance minister had a golden opportunity to put the brakes to free spending and chart a new and rewarding course for the majority of Canadians. Unfortunately, this minister has opted to continue the path created by his predecessor. The Liberal track record of broken promises and boondoggle after boondoggle speaks for itself.

We have seen a 500-fold overrun in the net cost of the firearms registry, $1 billion spent and growing on fraudulent and inadequately administered human resources development grants and millions of dollars in advertising contracts that are now under investigation by the RCMP. It is a long list and it is not a list of which to be proud.

I would like to quote the leader of the Canadian Alliance on the government's wasteful record. He said, “Each wasted billion was a billion wasted opportunities for Canadians”. That is exactly what that is. For every dollar wasted--

[Question No. 153, March 26th, 2003]

With respect to the Business Development Bank of Canada, what was the number of loans authorized for: ( a ) each province; and ( b ) each year from 1993 to 2002?

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-20 and--

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question to pose to the member. I had the opportunity to travel with the finance committee when the prebudget debate and consultations were going on. I discovered that most of the people who came to the hearings came asking for more and more. Very few came with any idea as to how to manage the finances a little better. I did not hear anybody present any ideas along those lines, ideas for the government to pursue as far as creating a fairer tax regime for Canadians is concerned.

It seems to me that the government has responded to that. It has listened to everybody and has tried to appease everybody, but it has not come up with an overall plan as to how this budget will further Canadians in the long run and establish Canada as a unique country with very definite ideas on where it wants to be in 10 years. I think what happened through the consultation was that all those requests for more money came in, the government indicated it had more and it sprinkled some money out to a lot of different areas. But I see nothing that points to a strategy of making it a better and more unique country 10 years down the road. I would like the member to comment on or defend what I see as the wrong approach in this budget.

[Transportation, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of National Revenue, not the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. I hope he will be quiet this time.

The government continues to put roadblocks in the way of development. The $24 tax on international flights is bad enough. The Minister of National Revenue is picking winners and losers across Canada by suspending port of entry status at her whim.

The minister has stated that on-site customs inspectors would be available where air traffic warranted the service. Why then are busy airports like Lethbridge being denied port of entry status?

[Transportation, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we will get into a real question after a Liberal commercial.

Post September 11 the Minister of National Revenue suspended the port of entry status for dozens of airports across Canada. This action at the Lethbridge airport, like many others, has caused a loss of economic opportunity.

Port of entry status is critical to our economic development. Lost opportunity with international industry has already cost us jobs. Relying on CANPASS has resulted in a documented 96% drop in international flights in Lethbridge alone.

Southern Albertans along with many other communities want to know when the minister will reinstate port of entry status.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). The two are closely tied together.

It was interesting the other day when the Prime Minister introduced the bill in the House. He stands here day after day, and defends himself and his government against scandal after scandal. He says over and over that everything is fine, everything is above board, and there is nothing going on that should not be and it is squeaky clean. On the other hand he brings in a piece of legislation and promotes it by saying it would clean up influence peddling. If there is not any, what is the problem here? I think an assumption we all must make is that there is a problem.

He indicated that this would make things more open and democratic. One of the members from the Liberal side talked earlier about being nominated. In some constituencies there is no nomination meeting. The Prime Minister parachutes a candidate and says it is the person he wants to run in that riding and that is who it is. In the governing party the Prime Minister has the right to not sign nomination papers. That is not democratic. It is certainly different from the way our party works.

If hon. members want to talk about fighting for democratic change, I do not think they should look across the House. They should look right here. That is something on which this party has based its policies and platform. There needs to be more democracy here in the House and throughout the system under which we operate. Time after time we have brought forward recommendations that could have been implemented. We have looked at all aspects of governance to see what could be done to make it more democratic and make Canadians feel that they have more of a say in what happens in governing the country.

However we have been turned aside. There were simple things like working with private members' business to make more bills votable allowing individual members the opportunity to have more of a say and to bring up issues that they were hearing from their constituents to put into law. However that is fought at every turn.

I believe the bill is proposing to take away from Canadians the opportunity to support who they think best represents their policies or what they feel is right for Canada and the Government of Canada. I have always maintained in my campaigns and in the campaigns of our party that if a person wants to donate, then that is great. People donate because they believe in the policies and platforms of a party and they believe in the candidate. If people donate because they expect to get something back in return they will be very disappointed. If people are donating to a political party because they think it will bring back some personal or corporate benefit to them, then indeed we do have a huge problem.

I will always remember that in the last campaign I received a cheque from an elderly widowed lady for a small amount. It was sent with an attaching note saying that this was all she had. She said it was all she could afford, but she wanted me to have it to use it to promote what my party and I believed in. That is what this is all about. If we take that away, if we make people donate through the tax system and contribute to parties in which they do not believe, that gets away from the whole aspect of what is right and what needs to be done in our political system.

I wish to do a recap on what the bill entails. The intention appears to be to compensate parties for the removal of corporate and union donations which are largely made at the party level rather than to individual candidates or constituency associations. The way the bill is constructed, there would be many ways to get around that. The amount of individual contributions is high. I am sure that if a union or a corporation were to funnel some money into a party, then that would be able to be done, even under the new rules with the $10,000 for personal contribution. When we think about that, the maximum tax credit people could receive is for a donation of $1,275, so if they are donating over that, then it certainly is not to get a tax benefit.

Political parties are at the heart of a modern political and electoral system and are essential to a vibrant and viable democratic system. It is so important that different parties come forward to represent different views and represent different aspects of society.

Whether this should entail public funding, directly or indirectly and, if so, at what level or what level is appropriate is the debate today. At present, registered political parties are publicly funded through the tax system, deductions for contributions, and through the partial reimbursement of election expenses. I will get into that a little later.

Candidates are also reimbursed for a proportion of their election expenses, while contributors can take advantage of the favourable tax treatment of political donations. There is a compounding factor that I will mention. The bill proposes to enhance and extend that regime.

Currently, registered parties can be reimbursed for 22.5% of their election period expenses. Anything that is spent during the writ period, the federal party or the national party gets 22.5% of that back. The rate of reimbursement of electoral expenses for candidates is currently 50%. In our local campaigns we get back 50% of everything we spend during the writ period from the taxpayer.

If people donate $400 under the new proposal, they get a 75% tax deduction for that. When we as candidates put that forward, we get 50% of that back. This has a compounding effect and the taxpayer continually pays for campaigns.

With respect to individual candidates, the bill proposes that the percentage of votes a candidate must obtain in his or her riding to qualify for reimbursement of electoral expenses be lowered to 10% from 15%. That 15% has always been a platform where we want to try to keep our opposition or the people who we run against us underneath that because they do not get the rebate. It is an additional challenge when campaigning. Now that has been lowered to 10%.

The proposed bill provides for an annual allowance. I want people to understand that this is an annual allowance to registered parties in the amount of $1.50 per vote received by the party in the previous general election, provided the party has received in the last election either 2% of the valid votes cast nationally or 5% of the votes in the ridings where the party ran candidates. Every year between elections that $1.50 will come to political parties. This figure is apparently based on replacing what would be lost to corporate donations. I believe there are other reasons for that.

Let us look at what happened in 1993. In the previous election in 1988 the Progressive Conservative government had a majority. That majority was reduced from roughly 170 seats to 2 seats. Over that period of time the support for the party had dropped right through the floor. It had come down to about 2% of what it used to be. However during the period of time between elections it would have continued to receive $1.50 for everybody who cast a ballot for it in the last election. In the meantime its support had absolutely evaporated. Therefore, in the last couple of years before an election things can change dramatically. People who had voted for the party but no longer supported it would still be giving $1.50 per year.

As an incentive to encourage contributions by individuals, the bill also introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act to double the amount of an individual's political donation, which is eligible for a 75% tax credit from $200 to $400, and to increase accordingly each other bracket of the tax credit to a maximum tax credit of $650 for political donations of $1,275 or more. The Income Tax Act amendments in the bill will apply to the 2003 tax year and beyond.

If we raise the eligible tax credit to 75%, I know one gentleman at home who will be completely torn apart by this issue. He wants to donate to the Canadian Cancer Society, the Kidney Foundation of Canada, Child Find or others and he wants to get the same credit for that as he does for a political donation but he cannot.

In wrapping up, we cannot support the bill because it puts the onus of funding political parties on the taxpayer in general, instead of a person having the ability to support the party that he or she wants.

[Petitions, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition that has 48 names on it. These names are added to tens of thousands that have been tabled in the House by members of all parties.

These concerned citizens in my riding call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-13 again today. We have tried to address most of the groupings of amendments as they have come forward. As the previous speaker said, interest in the bill has been quite high. There have been times when we have dealt with legislation that does not really catch the imagination or interest of Canadians, but this bill certainly has.

We have all received hundreds of letters, e-mails, phone calls and visits on this issue and have been presented with a wide variety of concerns. I had a letter this morning from a constituent in Lethbridge who had picked up on the different amendments and had an opinion on them. I appreciate that input. As we go through this process, it is important that Canadians have that ability.

This legislation was tabled, went to committee where the best witnesses on the subject were brought forward. Our former leader, Preston Manning, headed up the issue for our party. He brought some people together on Parliament Hill, and I was able to get to that meeting. It was an enlightening experience trying to understand a bit more about what this was all about. We are not all experts on everything and we have to learn, along with everybody else, about some of the subjects with which we deal.

In committee experts are brought together and different positions are put forward. The committee listens and comes up with amendments. However there is a possibility that everything which has been done in committee can be changed by the cabinet. Regulations can be created, things can be reversed and a different scope put on the legislation other than what was originally intended by the House and by Canadians in general. Hopefully we will vote for what we think is right and for what our constituents believe is right.

A lot of the amendments in this group deal with some concerns. One concern is the fact that the government is trying to take away the powers of committees and the House and is giving it back to cabinet. If we have a bill in front of us, it concerns me when I am told that the regulations will be done after the bill is passed. That is not good enough.

Some regulations deal with how the legislation will be implemented, how it will be handled and how it will be interpreted. In the past we have sometimes run into trouble with the legislation that has come out of the House. It has been challenged in the courts, that is, interpreted freely by judges as not being tight enough. It is very important that the House consider the bill and the regulations in their entirety. It is important that we do not give the parameters to cabinet to make changes after.

Motion No. 92 in the Group No. 6 deals directly with equivalency agreements that the health minister must negotiate with the provinces. It is very important that this be addressed and that some kind of reasonable requirements be put on this. In the past, results of negotiations between the provinces and the health minister have not always been good.

We know this has been a long time coming. As recently as a few days ago, the first ministers were in town to try to come to agreement with the Prime Minister on health care. This almost fell apart, and many of them went away very unhappy. It is important that this aspect be addressed. It is important that the health minister be given some reasonable limits on coming up with these agreements with the provinces because that is critical.

It is important that the public be consulted on these equivalency agreements with the provinces with regard to transparency and accountability. It is important that the public be allowed to look at the text of draft agreements. All of this is a very important part of the whole public debate on allowing Canadians to look into this process to ensure the government does the right thing and that it comes up with legislation that is meaningful and acceptable.

Motion No. 93 would entirely delete clause 65. It would remove the power that the governor in council would have to make regulations. We are saying to take out clause 65 and take away the power that the bill would give to cabinet to make regulations.

This regulation would actually be the vehicle for which the bill would be put into law. We have some serious concerns with that and so we support the amendment to take out clause 65. Subclause 65(bb) would allow the governor in council to exempt controlled activities from the provision of the act through regulation. If it is in the act, why on earth would we want to give the cabinet the power to exempt some of these controlled activities?

Motion No. 95 was again an amendment that deals with the shift in power to the cabinet by the governor in council.

Motion No. 98 is a minor amendment specifying that regulations should be referred to the appropriate committee of each House, rather than an appropriate committee, which is just a small thing, but another part that is important is that regulations “shall” be referred to a committee, an appropriate committee of the House of Commons.

It was something that we fought for and won at committee. Previous wordings said regulations “may”. This is really important as we go through legislation. The word “shall” implies that it should be done, but “may” that it may not be done, it does not have to be. But when it is changed to “shall” then that is something that the legislation says must be done. We fought for that and are encouraged that it is here. We are going to support that. It was brought forward by the health minister. Anytime we can enhance accountability and transparency in the House, it is a step in the right direction.

Motion No. 103 was brought forward by the member for Yellowhead and would delete clause 71 which would allow the grandfathering of controlled activities until the day fixed by the regulation. That indicates that anything that is happening can be grandfathered until the legislation is implemented.

As currently worded the clause would allow scientists to engage in a controlled activity once before the act takes effect and thereby avoid licensing requirements and prosecution provisions. We were concerned that this would create a huge stampede to start into one of the areas, embryonic stem cell research for example, that the bill is looking to control in some way, and then all of these activities would have to be grandfathered.

We are saying controlled activities should not be grandfathered because there are important reasons why controlled activities, otherwise requiring licences and violations, are subject to prosecution. That is because they involve the creation and manipulation of human life.

That is where we get back to the issue that is important in the bill, that the dignity and sanctity of human life be respected throughout this entire process.

I suppose many of the letters or comments I have received on the bill are aimed at that specific item almost entirely. At the very best the bill should specify a time limit, not just be open ended on grandfathering and not leave it to the regulation.

Motion No. 105 does the same thing. It refers to Motion No. 103 and it is similar to Motion No. 104. But again, it says that grandfathered activities should require a licence if there are changes in the scope or purpose of such activities. That just makes sense. If somebody has been doing a certain type of research and all of a sudden that research is expanded or changed in scope, just to get underneath the grandfathering window, then we need to address that issue.

There are some positive things in the bill. The fact that assisted human reproduction would be more tightly regulated, making it safer and more effective for prospective parents, is good.

Some of the things that need to be addressed are being addressed, but we believe that there is a lot that needs to be taken into account. Regarding the amendments that we are bringing forward it is important that they be looked at and considered, and not just put aside by the majority vote that the government has on these issues.