Rick Dykstra

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2007]

When good legislation is enacted, Mr. Speaker, and in regard to the opportunity for review and updates and the opportunity to ensure that success has been met, it is something that the committee certainly has talked about. It did not necessarily recommend that, but it certainly talked about how a future justice committee could take a look back at it to see if the foundation that was laid with Bill C-35 was successful. I think it will be. That success will be clear as we move forward.

One of the difficulties, though, as everyone knows, is that we will never know when we have stopped someone from committing a serious crime, perhaps a murder. We will never know whether or not it has been prevented. That is the one difficulty the committee faced. It is certainly one that needs to be looked at in terms of review.

The member for Trinity—Spadina mentioned community programs. I would point out that the 2006 budget laid out community programs. The Minister of Public Safety certainly made announcements on it over the last year. I am not even going to talk about what the figure may be, because I think the figure is not as important as the recognition that this government has put this forward and has asked communities to come forward with programs for youth to make sure they have an education and an opportunity rather than belonging to a gang or, certainly, picking up a gun.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging the support of the hon. member on committee, as well as the work he did to make sure that we did move forward. It was a lengthy study. We did a lot of work. We heard a lot of witnesses.

As he pointed out, we did not necessarily hear specifics that went back historically a long way, but we certainly did hear from witness after witness that, based on their experiences, this is a necessary piece of legislation. It had to be put forward.

As the member pointed out, the statistic of 40% was put forward. Having said that, I also note that it did not necessarily include the fact that a number of individuals who are charged end up pleading guilty to lesser charges, not necessarily the original charge, but certainly a lesser charge as to degree.

However, certainly the intent of the legislation is to ensure that we are proactive. It is to ensure that we are proactive in the sense that certainly for criminals who are repeat offenders, and who have shown that they will offend again, it is up to them to prove, while on bail and while their charge is being held, that they have a right to move forward in a process that is going to be fair to them.

At the same time, we need to ensure, as many of the witnesses indicated, that justice will prevail, that those who are guilty will be found guilty, and that those who are not guilty certainly will not have to spend an extraordinary amount of time waiting for trial.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am exceptionally pleased that we are debating Bill C-35 at third reading. According to my colleagues, it is the second best thing that has happened yet today.

It proposes a reverse onus in bail hearings for a number of firearm-related offences.

Canada's new government is following through with its commitment to get tough on crime. That is why, since last spring, we have introduced 11 bills to make our communities safer. We have tackled key issues such as gun crimes, alcohol and drug impaired driving, street racing, and the protection of our youth from adult sexual predators.

This government is listening to what Canadians are telling us. We are making progress on amending the Criminal Code to make it more responsive to their concerns.

It is important that we maintain the trust of Canadians in the criminal justice system. Along with other bills, Bill C-35 aims to do just that. Bill C-35 demonstrates this government's commitment to ensuring that people charged with serious firearm offences do not roam our streets while out on bail.

In my view, the legislative reforms proposed in Bill C-35 are appropriately tailored to the concern that has been expressed by many Canadians, the concern about the release from custody of individuals accused of serious gun crimes who pose a threat to public safety.

Bill C-35 proposes to shift the onus during bail hearings from the Crown to the accused, so that people charged with serious firearm offences will not benefit from a presumption in favour of release on bail. The burden will be on them to demonstrate why it is not justified to keep them in custody until they are dealt with according to the law.

Under Bill C-35, a reverse onus will apply in a number of cases.

First, Bill C-35 creates a reverse onus for eight serious offences committed with a firearm. These offences are: attempted murder; discharging a firearm with intent; sexual assault with a weapon; aggravated sexual assault; kidnapping; hostage taking; robbery; and extortion. It is clear that these are serious offences and their severity is only heightened when they are committed with a firearm.

Second, Bill C-35 proposes a reverse onus for the offences of firearm trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and firearm smuggling. While firearm trafficking and smuggling are not offences that involve the actual use of a firearm, they are nonetheless very serious offences. Those involved in firearm trafficking and smuggling are responsible for the illegal supply of guns to people who cannot lawfully possess them and who are likely to use them for a criminal purpose.

The Criminal Code already provides a reverse onus for accused persons charged with drug trafficking and smuggling. It should also provide a reverse onus for those who are involved in firearm trafficking and smuggling. Just like those involved in the drug trade, firearm traffickers are also involved in organized and lucrative crime. In some cases, these activities go hand in hand and involve the same network of people.

Regardless of whether the charge is for firearm trafficking and smuggling or for drug crimes, a reverse onus should apply to the accused. The potential for continued involvement in that kind of ring is high, even after the accused has been arrested and then released. From a public safety perspective, firearm traffickers play a significant role in the firearm homicide problem. Their involvement poses an indirect but significant threat to the safety of the public.

Bill C-35 also creates a reverse onus for any offence involving a firearm or other regulated weapon if committed while the accused is subject to a weapons prohibition order.

Weapons prohibition orders are imposed in many cases, such as, for example, when a person is convicted of an indictable offence in which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted. They are imposed on people convicted of certain drug trafficking and smuggling charges, as well as weapon-related offences. They remain in force for several years and in some cases for a lifetime.

Weapons prohibition orders are a very important tool in our criminal law to help prevent firearm violence, whether it is homicides or other gun related crimes, but also accidental injuries and suicides.

I would like to highlight the fact that there are approximately 35,000 prohibition orders currently in force in our country. This specific reverse onus situation has the potential to apply in a number of cases where the risk of future firearm violence is a concern. People should not be entitled to bail when they have demonstrated their inability to abide by a court order to not possess firearms or other regulated weapons.

Finally, Bill C-35 provides additional criteria specifically related to firearm offences for the court to consider when it decides whether the detention of the accused is justified.

This particular amendment is not a new reverse onus situation. The court will be able to justify denying bail to a person charged with an offence involving the use of a firearm or with a firearm offence that attracts a minimum penalty of three years or more.

If the court is not able to justify keeping a person in custody under the other permitted reasons, under Bill C-35 it will be able to do so if it is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Bill C-35 takes into consideration the broader picture regarding crime in the country. When it comes to gun crimes, the situation has changed, and we need to adapt to this change.

The reality is that organized crime and now street gangs are armed. Frequently they are armed with handguns or other restricted or prohibited firearms. Our criminal justice system must be properly equipped in order to step up to the challenges posed by this new brand of criminality.

Several of our large urban centres are now struggling with the criminal use or illegal possession of firearms by members of street gangs and by drug traffickers. Innocent people are affected by inter-gang violence, random shootings, armed robberies and, as we saw so recently, killings in schools. Just a couple of weeks ago, another young person, Jordan Manners, was fatally shot in a Toronto school.

We are adapting to changing times and changing crimes. Bill C-35 will enhance our bail regime to reflect our collective denunciation of gun crimes.

I am very happy that the bill is being met with quite a bit of support from all parties in the House and from various stakeholders. I would like to express how pleased I am with the recent support of the bill by the Bloc. Indeed, the study of this bill in committee has given us the opportunity to find out about important points of view, allowing all parties to appreciate its value. It is proof that committees can work.

The government believes that Bill C-35 is a very sensible piece of legislation. It is focused, strong and right. It is my hope that it will be well received in the Senate and that senators will move on it quickly and expeditiously.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the perspectives of the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and respect his work, but I have difficulty trying to understand his view on the budget.

He picked on one program within the budget, upon which changes were said to come from the very beginning. It was a new program that needed to be implemented based on getting rid of the situation where MPs were signing off. We would turn it into a system that was fair and equitable, a system that would be reviewed after it started, and it was.

He asked a question in the House as to why that association had not received funding. He stood in the House today and acknowledged that it did receive funding. Congratulations, the organization deserved and received the funding it should have.

The one thing he did not talk about, and the member for Saint John did not speak about beforehand, was the $1.4 billion under new equalization for New Brunswick, the $1.3 billion for equalization for Nova Scotia, the $512 million under the Canada health transfer for New Brunswick and the $639 million to Nova Scotia for health care transfers. Talk about the big impact this budget will have on provinces that for years cried to the former government for help and what did it say? Nothing. Newfoundland and Labrador had to lower the flag in order to get attention.

Why will the member not acknowledge the good, the intent and the funding that will help his province? Why he will not support the budget?

[Petitions, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 100 of my constituents, drawing attention to the alarming level of violence against indigenous women and girls. The petitioners urge the Canadian government and Parliament to condemn this violence and work toward a solution.

[Organ Donation, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I recently learned of a young girl in my riding named Mackenzie Walchuck, who was diagnosed with a life-threatening liver disease at the age of three. Mackenzie is now 11 and the disease has progressed to the point that her liver can no longer function.

She is the youngest person in Canada in need of a liver and she needs it now, but Canada has one of the lowest organ donation rates among industrialized countries. This is something we need to change.

On behalf of Mackenzie and the thousands of other Canadians waiting for new organs, I have a simple request. I ask people to sign their organ donor cards and consider becoming a living donor. Certain types of organs, including kidneys and liver, like Mackenzie needs, can be given safely by living donors. At the cost of a minor inconvenience, we could all save a life.

Health Canada and provincial ministries of health can provide more information for people who want to help. All we need to do is act.

[Goods and Services Tax, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal tax and spend philosophy has Canadians worried. Apparently, the Liberals think Canadians do not pay enough taxes and they want them to pay more.

The Liberals, who once promised to scrap the GST, have shockingly revealed their plan to increase the GST should they ever, I repeat ever, get back into power. Constituents in my riding and across Canada are worried.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please inform the House how much this Liberal tax increase would cost every hard-working Canadian in this country?

[Income Trusts, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill.

I am a little surprised to see the member here. He and I had a good debate on Thursday of last week and he indicated that if I showed him where in the Liberal red book it said that the GST was going to be cancelled, scrapped and changed, he would resign, but he is here today to speak to his private member's motion. I took him up on his challenge, mano-a-mano, and, like the Liberal Party, he did not keep his commitment.

I take this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Motion No. 321, a proposal that represents another sorry chapter in the tale of Liberal mismanagement on the issue of income trusts. It is a book that is never going to become a best seller, and I would like to think, as probably all Canadians would, that the conclusion of the Liberal Party is actually being written as we speak.

The Liberal Party now has had at least three policies on income trusts: one with the tax, one without a tax, and now we are back with a tax in another Liberal plan.

The proposal in this motion fails in every respect. First, there is no tax neutrality between trusts and corporations. Second, it does not address significant federal and provincial revenue losses if existing trusts continue to grow. Third, there is no level playing field. It maintains a tax advantage for income trusts over corporations, which we have seen is bad for this country.

It would open the door for corporate taxpayers like Hibernia and EnCana to convert to trusts. No wonder, as the member for Peterborough so aptly put it, that Finn Poschmann of the C.D. Howe Institute called it “a politically funky stew”. I have seen Finn at our finance committee meetings and I am not saying that he always agrees with us, but I will say that he and the government are 100% on side in terms of what we needed to do with income trusts.

Our government is committed to tax fairness, as we announced on October 31, 2006. Prior to that, Canadian companies were announcing intentions to convert to the income trusts and it was happening at a frenetic pace. Such decisions offered short term tax benefits but created significant economic distortions. It threatened Canada's long term economic growth and it shifted future tax burdens onto taxpaying Canadians, both families and individuals.

It would have meant unchecked growth that would have resulted in billions in lost revenue, which would not have been invested in the priorities of Canadians. This has been confirmed by a number of experts. Economist Andrew Teasdale noted that “exploitation was set to expand to a level which could have significantly impacted the ability of the government's right to make tax policy”.

Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge said:

By giving incentives that led to the inappropriate use of the income trust form of organization, the tax system was actually creating inefficiencies in capital markets, inefficiencies that, over time, would lead to lower levels of investment, output and productivity.

The introduction of the tax fairness plan restores balance and fairness to the federal tax system.

The decision was not an easy one. It was a tough one, but it was the right one. The provision of doing the right thing and addressing tax relief means that we could reduce the general corporate income tax rate; we could increase the age credit amount for seniors; and in regard to a recommendation, after 40 years we actually could introduce pension income splitting for seniors.

This is the right plan. It will not indefinitely maintain a tax imbalance between income trusts and corporations, and it will not maintain the economic distortions which that imbalance entailed, an imbalance that over the next number of years would have forced personal income tax rate increases that would have shocked Canadians.

Dominic D'Alessandro of Manulife Financial said it was “the right thing” and that “continuing on this path [of income trusts] would not be in the long-term interest of this country”.

In April 2007 the Financial Post had a poll that showed that a majority of Canada's business leaders supported our action and saw income trusts “as an increasing threat to economic growth because income trusts, unlike normal companies, were obliged to distribute their earnings and couldn't readily reinvest”.

They couldn't talk about the reinvestment of capital equipment, of machinery. That is something we put right in the budget with the accelerated capital cost allowance that allows companies and corporations across this country to accelerate the investment they make into their companies. Instead of doing it over 10 or 15 years, they can now do it in two years. We are starting to see companies and corporations move in that direction.

Even the Liberal member for Halton said that “reforming the [income] trust business and stemming the tide of conversions is necessary for the long-term health of the economy”.

Motion No. 321 offers dangerous false hope to Canadians who suffered losses, regrettably, and it suggests that going back to an imbalance is actually the right thing to do. It would reintroduce unnecessary uncertainty into financial markets. We have seen, as I outlined, that the movement of the Liberal Party on income trusts has shown that the financial markets were imbalanced when they tried to and did not move on this.

I am not the only one saying that. Jack Mintz of the Rotman School of Management said that the Liberals are “creating market uncertainty by extending false hope to investors”. The National Post said, “The issue is settled”. It said, “In other words, it's time to move on“.

Everyone in the House got the message except the Liberals. Why not? Why are the Liberals proposing a plan that will exacerbate revenue loss? Let us imagine the revenue loss if Hibernia or EnCana and other large energy companies were to convert to income trusts. The Liberal plan would create a burden on Canadian taxpayers and would cost the federal and provincial treasuries billions.

Every single province supported our tax fairness plan. From across this country finance ministers from every province and territory wrote letters to every member of the finance committee to tell them that this was the right thing to do.

P.E.I. finance minister Mitch Murphy said that without our plan the province could find itself “facing a severe tax base decline...[that] would be very damaging to [Prince Edward Island's] efforts to build a strong, self reliant corporate tax base...as well as in the Atlantic region in general”.

Canada's Conservative government has said it repeatedly: Canadians pay far too much tax.

Budgets 2006 and 2007 introduced a total of over $40 billion of tax relief benefiting Canadian individuals and businesses.

Ignoring the issue of income trusts would have resulted in ordinary Canadians paying more tax today and for years to come.

Corporate tax avoidance left us with us with a choice. We either balance our budget on the backs of ordinary Canadians or we take firm action to implement tax fairness. It was not an easy decision. When leadership is required and when tough decisions are made, leadership is never easy and those decisions are never easy, but those decisions have to be made.

The tax fairness plan provides certainty and security. Proceeding with the plan means acting in the national interest and enhancing incentives to save and invest for family retirement and security.

Unlike previous governments, we did not base our decisions on political calculation but on principles of tax fairness, balancing the needs of the individual investors versus the interests of taxpayers.

Decisions are all about fairness: fairness for Canadian taxpayers and their families who would otherwise be asked to pay more and more; fairness for the corporate sector, by removing the tax distortion in favour of income trusts relative to corporations; and fairness for all Canadian governments, federal, provincial and territorial, by preventing a significant loss of tax revenue, by setting right a significant wrong.

Where once there was speculation, today there is certainty. Where once there was posturing, today there are principled decisions. Where once there was dithering, today we have decisiveness. Where once we had confusion, today we have confidence.

Businesses are making their own choices and they are moving on. It is time we all moved on. The result of our decision is clear: a tax system that is fairer for Canadians and that will help our economy to become more productive, efficient and dynamic today and for years to come.

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member can rest assured that the next part of my speech dives right into that topic.

I would like to remind the member that the next time he stands to speak to any issue that he heed the words and advice that he just gave me because I think they would be outstanding for him to follow as well.

Bill C-40 would also improve our tax advantage. It would improve fairness and efficiency in the sales tax system and would ease compliance in administration for businesses and for government.

The bill consists of three parts. The first pertains to the GST and the harmonized sales tax. The second relates to the taxation of wine, spirits and tobacco. The third concerns the air travellers security charge.

I will begin with the GST. This bill is principally aimed at improving the operations and the fairness of the GST-HST in specific sectors of the economy. The principle behind the measure encompasses important areas for Canadians.

First and foremost is health care. Canadians know that our health system is one of the best and it needs to stay that way. Bill C-40 contains a number of measures to help improve it. It would cement the GST and the HST exemption for speech language pathology services and it would add the services of social workers to the list of services exempt from the GST or the HST. This is consistent with the policy criteria for the inclusion of a particular service on the list of the GST-HST exemption in all provinces.

The criteria is as follows. If a service is covered by the health care plan in a given province, it is exempt in that province. If a service, however, is covered by the health care plan of two or more provinces, it is exempt in every province. If a profession is regulated as a health profession by at least five other provinces, the services of that profession are exempt in all provinces.

The government is also very aware of the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities. Budget 2006 went above and beyond the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities. In that spirit, Bill C-40 broadens the specially equipped vehicle GST-HST rebate for individuals with disabilities. It also exempts the sale and importation of a blood substitute known as plasma expander. It also restores the tax-free status of a group of drugs commonly used to treat a variety of conditions, such as seizure control, anxiety and alcohol withdrawal.

Those measures illustrate the government's commitment to ensuring that Canadians continue to have access to timely and quality health care.

Canada's new government is committed to reducing taxes for individual Canadians as well as for Canadian businesses.

Budget 2007 reduces the paper burden on small business by 20% by no later than November 2008. It also decreases the frequency of business tax remittance and filing requirements.

These measures are technical in nature so I will not get into the details but I will say that, broadly, they will ease compliance by removing technical impediments and simplifying compliance with the GST-HST legislation.

The second part of Bill C-40 dealing with excise measures relates to tobacco and alcohol products. The bill would amend the Excise Tax Act, 2001 to implement minor refinements that would improve the operation of the act and more accurately reflect current industry and administrative practices.

The bill would also implement related and consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff and the Excise Tax Act.

The principal measures related to the Excise Tax Act, 2001 are as follows. The first is tobacco. Bill C-40 would extend the requirement to identify the origin of tobacco products to all products, including those for sale at duty-free shops or for export. This is consistent with the framework convention on tobacco control, an international treaty on tobacco control. It also clarifies which tobacco products may be supplied to the export market or the domestic duty-free market. For example, cigarettes, tobacco sticks, fine cut tobacco or cigars may be supplied but it does not include packaged raw leaf tobacco.

I will move on to the spirits licence, which is required to produce alcohol products using a still. There are still some cases where private laboratories, provincial liquor boards and vintners use stills to produce spirits, to analyze substances containing ethyl alcohol.

Bill C-40 would authorize these entities to possess a still without holding a spirits licence. However, to limit possession of non-duty paid spirits, the bill would also require these parties to immediately dispose of those spirits once the analysis is complete. This would also defer payment of duty by certain small vintners selling wine on consignment in retail stores until the wine was actually sold.

As I said, a number of administrative measures are in the bill. One has to do with the exchange of information between Canada and its foreign governments. The bill would permit the Minister of National Revenue to exchange excise duty information with foreign governments that are signatories to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. The bill would also add a discretionary power for the chief statistician of Canada to provide statistical information concerning business activities to all the provinces. It is similar to an existing provision that is already in the Income Tax Act.

Third and finally are air travel security charge measures. The bill would relieve the charge in respect of air travel donated by an air carrier to a registered charity that arranges free flights for individuals as part of its charitable purposes. It means that certain charities that arrange free air transportation services for people who cannot otherwise afford the cost of flights for medical care will not have to pay the air travel security charge.

This is a good time to introduce a couple of examples. It includes the flights of a lifetime, such as those provided by the Children's Wish Foundation of Canada and other similar charitable organizations that organize dream trips for physically, mentally and socially challenged children. It is not something new. It is one of which all of us across the country are certainly aware. Now we have eliminated any additional costs that may be incurred by these individuals.

Tax legislation must be applied consistently. Proposed ATSC relief for charitable flights reflects that objective by being consistent with relief from other federal levies provided to registered charities. It is also consistent with other ATSC relief measures such as that provided in respect of air ambulance services.

Summing up, Canada's new government understands that good government and good tax policy go hand in hand. Well focused tax policies are a sign of a government with some vision, and this government is all about that. We are looking ahead and planning for the steps we need to take to build a stronger economy and a more confident Canada. In doing so, together we can make Canada a world leader with a long term focused economic plan not just for today, not just for tomorrow, but for years to come.

[Sales Tax Amendments Act, 2006, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-40 at third reading. The bill contains a number of amendments to Canada's sales tax system. It also reflects the goal of our government to improve fairness in our tax system and ensure that it functions smoothly for individuals and businesses alike

However, before getting into the specifics of Bill C-40, I would like to remind hon. members of the key elements of advantage Canada, a plan put into action in budget 2007. The plan has five key advantages.

The first advantage is a tax advantage. We wanted to create new opportunities and choices for people and when we lower taxes we help do that. It helps keep our best and brightest here at home and it attracts the best and brightest from across the world. We always say that Canadians pay too much tax relative to competition so we did something about it.

Since budget 2006, we have reduced taxes. We have decreased the GST. We have increased the basic personal amount of exemption. We have reduced the lowest personal rate of tax. We implemented Canada's employment credit of $1,000 for every employee in the country who pays taxes. We also have other targeted tax relief measures.

Our tax fairness plan went even further for Canada's seniors. We implemented a $1,000 increase in the age credit amount and, most important, we finally, after successive governments, introduced pension splitting for seniors.

Those were significant steps but we needed to go further, and we did in budget 2007.

In budget 2007, Canadians again come out ahead through real tax relief that benefits working families.