A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
The Government of Canada has some 13,000 hopper cars for the movement of grain that it offered for sale. In his response the minister said: ``In the remaining minute of question period it is difficult to deal with the hour I spent with the committee earlier
this week, which apparently the hon. member did not bother to attend. It is difficult in one minute''.
The hon. minister had been in committee but I raised the questions after the minister left. It was a curiosity for me and for other members of the House to know precisely where the minister stood with regard to the various rules that would prevail when the cars were being offered for sale.
We found out at committee from the representatives from the railways that they have in their current contract, which was renegotiated in 1993 with this government, a right of first refusal should the government decide to dispose of the hopper cars. Regardless of who was the highest bidder on those cars, according to the railways they have the right to refuse to permit the sale to go through. They can either match it or make some other arrangement.
They also have an operating agreement that does not bother me too much. I would have expected that they would have an operating agreement. However their interpretation of how much power they had to impose the existing operating agreement on the new purchaser was a little disturbing. I thought it was incumbent on the minister to explain himself a little further.
(1920 )
There has been a quite a lot of experience with leasing of rail cars in Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board has about 2,000 farmer owned cars. I was involved in setting those up a long time ago.
There is an operating agreement which works reasonably well. As one would expect, the farmers who own those cars, every farmer under the wheat board, has them administered through the wheat board which has an agreement with the railways to pull them. That is a pretty simple, straightforward agreement that any future purchaser of the 13,000 grain cars owned by the Government of Canada will have to work out as well.
There is also the experience of the Saskatchewan Grain Car Corporation, which on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan owns cars which it leases to the railroads. The Government of Alberta has a similar arrangement for grain hopper cars, as does the province of Manitoba for a few hopper cars and a fleet of box cars to be used in the traffic up to Churchill. The various co-operative grain companies also lease cars which they then arrange with the railways to pull. That part is not something which is exactly rocket science.
However the right of first refusal on the sale does set back the farmers who attempted to bid on the sale, as do the limits the government seems to be putting on them with regard to the type of bid which will be accepted. It appears that a brokerage firm is setting up the requirements. It appears that all bidders will have to set up a share company. Apparently a co-operative is not acceptable according to testimony from some of the brokerage firms. The share offering will have to go through the various security commissions.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to tell the hon. member that his time has expired.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mackenzie for his thoughtful original question and for tonight's expanded question on the very complicated issue of hopper cars.
By way of an answer to the hon. member, I want to address the issue of the operating agreement with the railways and how it might impact on the sale of the federal government's fleet of grain hopper cars.
The original operating agreement dated back to 1972 when the first set of government cars was purchased. The agreement was renegotiated in 1993 to reflect policy changes that had occurred since then.
The operating agreement provides both the government and railways with certain rights and responsibilities. For example, the railways are required to operate and maintain the cars in western grain service and to pay commercial lease rates when they are used for other purposes.
The government does not believe that the agreement will be an obstacle in disposing of the cars in an open bidding process, since both the government and the railways have a common interest in improving the efficiency of the grain transportation and grain handling system.
The system is undergoing significant change as a result of the 1995 budget decision on western grain transportation reform and this year's budget decision to sell the federal fleet and reduce the role of government in day to day car allocation. These policy changes present both an opportunity and a challenge for the industry as it continues to move toward a more commercial system.
[Translation]
Since then, there has been a new development: on April 25, the minister of revenue appeared before the human rights committee, still in connection with the tax credit for persons with disabilities. On that occasion, she answered questions from opposition members as well as the other members of the committee.
I should say that she tried to answer our questions, because these have in fact remained unanswered. That is why I raise this issue again in this House today.
(1925)
I think that disabled people who are currently faced with legal proceedings, or who continue to file income tax returns, not only are entitled to a response to their concerns, but that this is a matter of humane treatment.
Since 1993, National Revenue has been applying a very restrictive interpretation of the clause on disability tax credits, which has meant that a number of people have been refused the credit because their disability is no longer recognized or, worse still-and this is the heart of the problem-are recognized as disabled but are deemed not to be entitled to the tax credit, because they do not meet the criteria for it.
The minister acknowledged in committee and in this House that a number of the criteria were questionable. I have repeated it and pointed it out to the minister when she appeared before the committee, even the Federal Court justices in tax cases went beyond, if you will, the interpretation department officials give to the tax credit and even beyond the letter of the law, I would say, to grant this credit to individuals with a handicap. They have in at least two decisions asked the lawmakers to redo their homework on this.
In addition, the Minister of Finance made a commitment in his budget speech in February to review taxation with respect to people with handicaps. A committee is to be struck to study it. Three months later, a decision has yet to be announced, when we know that a committee is already reviewing taxation of corporations.
I therefore ask that our questions be answered and, more importantly, that the government immediately set up a committee to review all tax measures applicable to persons with disabilities.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
[English]
On March 14, the Minister of National Revenue sent every member of Parliament a letter that outlined the disability tax credit program. The minister is aware that some of her colleagues have been very concerned about the administration of the program.
I can assure the member that the government has not tightened the eligibility criteria for the disability tax credit. In 1990, approximately 422,000 people claimed the disability tax credit and by 1994 this figure has grown by 138,000 to approximately 560,000.
Last year, as part of the normal post-assessment program, Revenue Canada reviewed the claims made by some existing claimants of the disability tax credit. This review was done to protect the integrity of the program and to ensure that the provisions of the Income Tax Act were fairly administered.
The minister has now taken steps to address some specific issues which have arisen as a result of this normal post-assessment review. The minister has confirmed decisions, for instance, to only recover the disability tax credit for the year under review and, that in all cases of financial hardship, any interest which accrued on the tax liability as a result of a reassessment to disallow the disability tax credit would be waived under the fairness provisions of the Income Tax Act.
The minister has ensured that whenever a reassessment results in taxes owing, Revenue Canada works with the individual to negotiate a mutually satisfactory repayment plan in a sensitive and compassionate manner which does not cause financial hardship.
All new claims for disability tax credit will now be reviewed at the time of initial assessment. This will reduce the possibility that new claimants who successfully claim the disability tax credit will find out at a later date that they were not eligible.
The Minister of National Revenue wants to ensure that Canadians with disabilities have the information they need to determine their eligibility for the disability tax credit. Here we have to have education. Therefore the minister has asked that a new pamphlet be prepared and widely distributed to give people the information they need to better understand the credit, its purpose and who is eligible.
(1930)
We were pleased in the House to hear the minister state the other day that there is no evidence of mad cow disease in Canada. I hope this means his department has the necessary regulatory and enforcement powers to protect Canadians.
The potential health impacts of mad cow disease on the human population demonstrates the value and necessity of maintaining, monitoring and enforcing regulations to ensure safe food and a healthy environment for the population.
What happens in times of budget restraint is that some governments give more importance to voluntary measures in the hope the business sector will police itself and thus effectively protect the public. It is true there are some industries which voluntarily strive for standards which are higher than those set through government regulations. In this sense volunteerism helps.
However, what must be stressed is that voluntary measures cannot replace good regulations and the funds needed to enforce them. It is foolish for some governments to promote the idea volunteerism can adequately protect public health and safety, be it in air travel, in restaurants, in food production, in water supply, in pollution control, in highway traffic, et cetera.
It becomes therefore evident the public interest is best served with a strong regulatory and enforcement policy through which the health and safety of all Canadians can be protected.
Again I ask the parliamentary secretary if he can confirm that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has sufficient regulatory powers and resources to ensure Canadians are fully protected against an outbreak of mad cow disease.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, food safety is the number one priority of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It is the responsibility of the department to ensure that experiences such as with BSE in the United Kingdom do not recur in Canada.
When a single case was detected in Canada in 1993, more actions were taken by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada than by any other country that had diagnosed this disease on its soil. It is impossible to say at this time what further actions must be taken or are necessary to ensure things remain as safe as possible, but everything will be done. I assure everyone in the House that everything will be done to ensure Canadians are safe and that the disease will not gain a foothold in Canada.
To ban the use of animal protein in livestock feed would require a regulatory change since the practice is currently legal in Canada, as it is in many other countries.
There is no scientific evidence that this practice, which has occurred for many years, has resulted in any human or animal health problem anywhere other than in the United Kingdom.
There are many differences between the feed production practices and the animal health situation in Britain and the current situation in Canada. Risk analysis of the situation indicates the likelihood of a similar situation arising in Canada as being so low as to be almost incalculable.
Nevertheless, since the World Health Organization has recommended a ban on the use of ruminant tissues in ruminant feed, we are discussing the issue of ruminant feeding with Canada's livestock, feed and rendering industries. These discussions are a high priority, as regulatory changes may be required.
With any such ban it is imperative not to cause problems within the industry. By putting a ban on the industry very quickly we could cause tremendous difficulty in major parts of the Canadian economy. It could also result in major problems with the disposal of animal byproducts which would have subsequent environmental impacts.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.)