Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 181
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm actually very sympathetic to the concern and embarrassment caused as a result of this. I don't believe there was anything malevolent in the event; I think it was a human error, as was reported. I think that if there's ever evidence to suggest that it is not human error, then appropriate action needs to be taken when you have a case where it is malevolent.
I've always been distressed that caucus meetings are not private or confidential, and that if you don't attend the Liberal caucus meeting, you can read about it the next day in the newspaper. That's an unfortunate reality around this place. It's not just a question of brown envelopes; there are people who choose not to respect the confidentiality of the place.
In this particular incident, I was shocked to find that there had been an informer. I don't think there has been any suggestion that there is evidence this was a deliberate attempt to target any individual in any way. Therefore, I think all we really could do as a committee, and I would suggest, is to be very clear that it is a breach of the Criminal Code for something like this to happen deliberately, that action can and will be taken by this committee should that ever occur, but that in this particular case there appears to be no evidence that's what actually occurred.
Therefore, as unpleasant and embarrassing and difficult a situation as it is, I'm not sure there's much that really should be done at this time.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
I understand that, and I understand the distinction. The concern I have is that whatever format the private communication has taken in the past, it puts that communication on the front page of the newspaper. While it may be different technically, because this was a recording, the reality is that the privacy and confidentiality of caucus meetings is not something that has been strictly observed.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes, thank you very much.
I find this discussion an interesting and important one, and I was aware of the court rulings. I wasn't aware of the ruling from January, but I wondered if you've looked at any precedents that have been established over the years around what members have done or not done, and whether or not they have had any impact on the privileges discussion. That's question number one.
Second, if we're going to have a discussion of privileges, Mr. Chair—and we haven't had a look at this since the 1800s, when they didn't have TV—it also seems to me that we should be looking at the question of privilege in the House to say libellous and defamatory-type things, or things that would be considered libellous and defamatory, with the advent of television.
It's my understanding that initially, when the privilege of the safeguards of the House were brought in, yes, everything went into Hansard, but you didn't have the kind of distribution of what, if clearly said outside the House by an individual, would be subject to the protections of libellous and defamatory responses and activity. I think that is something that should be looked at as well.
The fact that people see it on TV or they read in the newspaper that it was said.... If we are concerned about not only privileges of the member, but also about how we are all, on both sides of the House.... I'm talking about everybody, because I was in opposition for seven years at Queen's Park, and I engaged in similar kinds of rhetoric, knowing you had that protection. So I'm not speaking in a partisan sense at all. It's really about how do we want people to see all of us and the work we do, and should we review the rules around privilege in the House for being able to say things that clearly, outside the House, would have ramifications and implications that privilege guards against.
So I wanted to raise that as well, because I think we should look at all of the privilege. If we're going to update...we should be looking at all of those things that are considered privilege.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
I agree completely there. I don't think there's any problem. If you just add “wherever possible”, that would give you some flexibility, because I'd hate to see the committee not be able to meet if it wasn't possible to book a committee room that was televised.
I don't think anyone has any concerns, so if we could just add “where possible”, then that would give the chair some flexibility. If it were impossible, it wouldn't hold up the committee.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Where it says “televised”, that means we couldn't meet unless it was televised, if we pass this motion as is. So I think we all agree.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Then it would require an actual motion of the committee, and the committee would have to meet to decide that they were going to then decide to hold a meeting that was contrary to the motion, which is why I'm just suggesting “wherever possible” and that the chair is so directed.
No one has any concerns about doing this; I just would hate to see the work of the committee held up so that we couldn't do our work because it would take all our time figuring out how to get by this motion.
It would actually take a formal motion by the committee to override this if we pass it today without the words “if possible” or “wherever possible” attached to it. That's the only thing I'm pointing out.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
If we can amend it to say “wherever possible”, then it's absolutely supportable, but I would hate to see the work of this committee put in limbo because we couldn't meet the condition of “televised”.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
It means you can't meet unless it's televised, the way I read it.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Then what's the objection to an amendment that says “if at all possible” or “wherever possible”?
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes.
(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring you up-to-date on the activities at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
It's a pleasure to introduce the deputy commissioner, François Guimont. Also at the table with me are Monsieur Denis Lefebvre, who is the head of customs, and our chief financial officer, Mr. Stephen Rigby.
If there are questions for our other officials, I will introduce them as they come to take their place.
The agency's 2003-04 main estimates of $3,662.300,000 reflect an increase of $298.5 million, or 8.9% over last year's main estimates of $3,363,800,000, in the amount the agency is seeking from Parliament.
Since my appearance before this committee last May, the CCRA has made significant progress on many fronts. Let me say, Mr. Chair, I believe we have a record of achievement. Let me start by updating you on some of the customs programs speeding up the flow of low-risk legitimate trade, while detecting high-risk individuals and illegal contraband. Thanks to our thousands of customs employees, these programs strike a balance between security and facilitation.
We meet with both our American counterparts and industry regularly to continue the development of a smart border. After all, cross-border trade is worth $2 billion a day. It is pretty clear that we need to build bridges, not barriers.
FAST and NEXUS are examples of security programs streamlining border crossings for low-risk commercial shipments and travellers, while enhancing security. Applicants undergo thorough security checks and are pre-screened as secure, low-risk program members in both countries.
Free and Secure Trade, or FAST, allows commercial shipments to clear customs before they arrive at the border. Already, 13 major importers, 200 carriers, and over 10,000 drivers have applied to the FAST program.
NEXUS is tailored for frequent low-risk travellers; and more than 39,000 are already pre-participants. In fact, I saw our most recent note yesterday, showing that just over 40,000 have been approved in the program, and we're processing some 49,000 applications.
Advanced Passenger Information, or API, is now in place at airports for sharing information on potentially high-risk individuals. It includes the pilot testing of joint passenger analysis units, made up of officials from Canada and the United States. Currently operating in Vancouver and Miami, these pilot projects are now beginning their evaluation phase.
We are becoming more technologically advanced in our operations. For example, we us large-scale gamma ray machines to detect contraband, weapons, and other potentially dangerous goods. This is done without opening containers and exposing employees to their contents.
One of the things I am particularly proud of, Mr. Chair and committee members, is the CCRA's government online achievements. Turning to our services, we are all proud of our government's online achievements, but as you may know, Canada was recently rated number one in e-government by Accenture. The CCRA was cited in the study as a leader in e-government innovations and innovative practices. We are in fact a leader in the Government of Canada, and therefore around the world.
We've attempted to create a continuous improvement environment. For example, CCRA continually finds ways to improve our online services and to make them more accessible to Canadians. This year we added new features to the EFILE online program for tax professionals. Now up to 60 returns can be transmitted at once. As well, a program function has been added that provides immediate notification of outstanding balances and other important client information.
As part of our small business information centre, we launched a website for smaller and medium-size importers, with the information and tools they need to comply with customs commercial processes.
As an aside, the scientific research and experimental development program continued to support industrial research and development in the last year. It provided $1.5 billion annually in investment tax credits to Canadian innovators.
Looking ahead, it is reasonable to expect further enhancements to border management.
Now that I've outlined where we've been, I'd like to take a moment to map out where we are going.
The CANPASS-Air program is being implemented at Vancouver International Airport, and then the plan is to roll it out to seven other major Canadian airports later this year. Next, using iris recognition technology, the CANPASS-Air will speed up customs clearance for low-risk, pre-approved travellers. I remind you that CANPASS-Air is one way into Canada. NEXUS-Air is a two-way program, and our hope is to pilot it in Vancouver, going two way between Canada and the United States.
Next April, a 24-hour advance notification rule for marine importation will be implemented. It will require ocean carriers and marine forwarders to submit data to customs 24 hours prior to loading in a foreign port. We also have plans to purchase devices to detect radiation inside marine containers before they are opened or inspected.
We're also committed to enhancing and ensuring the integrity of the tax system, which is part of our mission. On the revenue side, a main priority of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is to ensure the integrity of the tax system. When it comes to complying with Canada's tax laws, the vast majority of Canadians voluntarily file their taxes each year. However, there are those who attempt to defraud the government through evading tax, by participating in the underground economy or in illegal tax schemes.
An example of our efforts to combat the underground economy is our partnership with the Canadian Home Builders' Association, called the Get it in Writing campaign. It informs consumers about the risks involved in hiring contractors for residential construction without a legal contract. Should the job be botched or done improperly, these individuals would have no recourse unless they have a contract. That's the message we're giving them, in partnership with the industry. We plan to add more resources and other professionals to our already strong compliance team. In fact, Mr. Chair and members, Canada has one of the best records of compliance of any of the countries in the world.
We will soon be implementing a national standard for reviewing newly created GST accounts within five days of registration. This will assure that the information supplied is validated promptly, and that follow-up action can be taken where necessary.
We will continue to pursue cases of non-compliance in court to ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share—but I also say that we don't want anyone to pay more than his or her fair share. That's why so many Canadians are so pleased to receive tax rebates if they've overpaid during the year in the filing of their taxes.
In conclusion and in summary, a lot of progress has been made in the development of our smart and secure border. The CCRA will continue to work cooperatively with the United States and our many stakeholders.
On the revenue side, I am pleased to report that our services to Canadians are continually improving. I especially want to underline once again our success with government online. The response to our advertising campaign, which I think you all had a chance to see on TV, was excellent. This year, close to 9 million tax returns were filed online.
The CCRA and its dedicated employees are committed to running programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. We're also committed to being transparent and accountable to Canadians through working cooperatively with the Auditor General and reporting annually to Parliament.
I'd like to take a moment and tell you what our mission statement is. Our mission is to promote compliance with Canada's tax, trade, and border legislation and regulations through communication, quality service, and responsible enforcement, thereby contributing to the economy and social well-being of Canadians.
I'd be pleased to answer any questions that committee members might have.
Merci beaucoup.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Actually, in my speech in Cornwall--and we now refer to the Cornwall commitment, which has been put on our website, and our managers, at their regular meetings, receive information on the progress we're making--one of the commitments I made was to connect the unconnected ports. You've heard the discussions about the need for broadband capacity. Part of the problem we have had is that some remote ports do not have access to the kind of infrastructure that would allow them to be connected easily. So we have developed a plan, and that plan is rolling out, because we do have a commitment.
As far as the total resources are concerned, I can tell you--and I made this commitment at Cornwall as well--that the resources will be made available to meet all the commitments in the Cornwall plan, in the Cornwall commitment.
Let me turn, however, to some examples in our fact sheet here of the kinds of equipment we have already ordered in the past year. These were one-time expenditures. Perhaps I can give you some examples of what we are deploying in expectation of having our borders equipped with the lastest state-of-the-art technology.
We've ordered 11 state-of-the-art mobile gamma ray scanners. These inspect entire marine containers, as well as rail shipments, at seaports and airports as well as land borders.
We are doing the research. Technical research has been completed, and we're signing a contract to have three gamma ray pallet scanners. Where I say the research has been done, that's why these are seen as state-of-the-art. They're going to be located at major marine ports.
We have doubled the number of low-energy baggage and cargo X-ray systems to over 60 units. They have been purchased, and they're being delivered now into the field.
Since 2001, we have purchased and implemented an additional 42 ion scanner systems. As you know, these detect both narcotics and explosives. Our total inventory now is about 90 systems that are in place and deployed. We have 30--
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
We recognize that we need certain equipment in certain places. That's why I mentioned connecting the unconnected--first, because it's our goal to have all the ports connected, and we will need to put in upgrades to infrastructure to be able to do that in some ports. But depending on what the volumes are at the ports....
For example, the 39 hand-held ion mobility spectrometers are going to be used at air and marine ports. They will not be at the land borders. We have other things there.
One of the low-tech but still very important technologies used is the detector dog service. If you've never seen them, I really recommend a visit. Call in advance so you don't interrupt the normal work. They can arrange for you to come without disrupting anything. They'll do a demonstration for you of the technology. But the dogs are really spectacular to see--how they do it. We've had a 25% increase in the detector dog service since 2001.
We've invested $1.5 million in over 200 hand-held inspection tools. These include fibrescopes, density meters, and a sophisticated pole camera.
CCRA has issued over 300 pieces of equipment such as radiation dosimeters. Those measure the amount of radiation that anyone might come into contact with. I saw these the first time when I was in Vancouver, when we were pilot testing the VACIS machine.
All our officers, both for their own protection but also to let us know whether or not there were any radiation leaks, were wearing the dosimeters at that time. We recognized that because of the concern about dirty bombs or things that might be hidden in containers in other places, these kinds of radiation dosimeters, hand-held meters, can help to detect without having to actually open the container, or a car or a truck.
We've also purchased some very sophisticated radiation detection equipment to place on vehicles, cranes, and railway lines at seaports. These help to detect illicit shipments of radiation.
Further--and I think this is important to note--we've invested $1.1 million in our laboratories to focus on developing and testing technology so we can detect traces of chemical and biological weapons.
Most people don't know about the laboratories we have, and most people don't know it was Canada Customs that actually produced, through its own research and development, the ion spectrometer. It is the one little bit of revenue that we receive directly, because we hold the original patent on the ion spectrometers, which are now deployed around the world.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm going to ask our deputy commissioner to give you the details on the numbers.
View Elinor Caplan Profile
Lib. (ON)
I thought we made a very lengthy and complete presentation before the public accounts committee. I was very pleased that the Auditor General reported, at that time, that she supported our plan and that she felt it would bring the kind of information before the committee on a regular basis so that they could have meaningful information and watch the trend over time.
I do have with me a copy of the deck that was presented. I think it is on the record. And I would point out again that, as I stated at the committee then, the total GST fraud as a percentage of collection is 0.012%.
Now I'm going to ask our assistant commissioner, chief financial officer Mr. Rigby, who made the presentation along with me on the numbers at the public accounts committee, to respond to your questions, because we are implementing a new way of reporting. We want to be as forthcoming and to give committee members factual information that will, in the context of all of our programs, not just the GST, help them to understand what a good compliance record we do have.
Results: 1 - 15 of 181 | Page: 1 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data