36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 90
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 4, 2000
1000
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
1005
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Mammography
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Delta—South Richmond
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Food Quality
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1010
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1015
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
1020
1025
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1030
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1050
1055
| Division on Motion Deferred
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
1100
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1105
1110
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1115
1120
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1125
1130
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1135
1140
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1145
1150
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1155
1200
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1205
1210
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1215
1220
1225
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill C-22. Report stage
|
| Motion No. 2 agreed to
|
1230
| Motion No. 3 agreed to
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Motion No. 9
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Motion No. 10
|
1235
| Motion No. 11
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1240
| Amendment
|
| Amendment
|
1245
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1250
1255
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1300
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1305
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1310
| Motion No. 8 agreed to
|
1315
| Motion for Concurrence
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1320
| Bill C-22. Third reading
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1325
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1330
1335
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1340
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADA BOOK DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| LAKE DAUPHIN FISHERY
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| DANIEL RICHER
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| LOUIS APPLEBAUM
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1400
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| JOE BEELEN
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| PREVENTION OF MENTAL ILLNESS
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1405
| GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| BRADLEY GASKIN MARSHALL CRITICAL CARE FUND
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| OPPOSITION PARTIES
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1410
| QUEBEC TAX SYSTEM
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| CIDRERIE MICHEL JODOIN
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN MANITOBA
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| RESERVE FORCE UNIFORM DAY
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CINAR
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1425
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1430
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CINAR
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1435
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1440
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1445
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| RURAL DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Hon. Andy Mitchell |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1450
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1455
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CRAB FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1500
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill C-22. Third reading
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1510
1515
1520
1525
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1530
1535
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1540
1545
| Suspension of sitting
|
1550
| Sitting Resumed
|
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Bill C-445
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1555
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1620
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1625
1630
1635
1640
| Amendment to the amendment
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1645
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1650
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1715
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1720
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1725
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
| OFFICE OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Motion
|
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1750
1755
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1800
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 90
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 4, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the report on Plans and Priorities for 2000-01 of the House of
Commons administration.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to seven
petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the first
ever annual report to parliament on rural Canada entitled
“Working Together”.
1005
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the report of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire
de la Francophonie, as well as the financial report.
The report relates to the education, communication and cultural
affairs commission meeting held in Libreville, Gabon, on March 6
and 7.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs be modified as follows: Norman Doyle for André
Harvey.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
MAMMOGRAPHY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by constituents who are calling upon parliament
to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body
to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory
mammography quality assurance and quality control standards in
Canada.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this
morning. The first petition deals with the issue of child
pornography.
The petitioners ask parliament to take all measures necessary to
ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence.
DELTA—SOUTH RICHMOND
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I also have two petitions which deal
with the issue of federal funding for a road which is referred to
in my community as the South Fraser Perimeter Road. It is a road
necessitated by the construction and growth at two ports, the
Fraser Port on the Fraser River and the Roberts Bank container
terminal known as Vanport.
Those two ports have caused a serious increase in traffic to
flow through the neighbourhood of North Delta through residential
streets. The truck traffic is horrendous.
The proposal to build a road on the south shore of the river is
unsatisfactory. The petitioners would ask that no federal
moneys be made available until such time as their concerns about
this road are taken into consideration.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people in Saskatchewan
and Ontario related to child poverty.
The petitioners remind us that one in five Canadian children
live in poverty, and that on November 24, 1989 the House
unanimously resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year
2000.
The petitioners tell us that since that time the number of poor
children in the country has increased by 60%. They therefore ask
parliament to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the
well-being of Canada's children. I wholeheartedly concur.
[Translation]
FOOD QUALITY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting
a petition to the House from petitioners in the riding of
Shefford, who are calling upon the Government of Canada to enact
legislation to ensure that the public may eat food that is
better for them, thus benefiting Canadian society and reducing
the burden on our health resources.
[English]
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by numerous citizens of Peterborough who point
out that whereas the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity
of human life, and whereas human life at the pre-born stage is not
protected in Canadian society, these petitioners pray that
parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed
by born human beings to unborn human beings.
1010
BILL C-23
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this
morning on behalf of my constituents. Hundreds of people have
signed these petitions concerning the sanctity of marriage.
The petitioners ask that the government take another hard look
at Bill C-23 and make the necessary changes to entrench in law
that marriage is an institution concerning a single man and a
single woman.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns child
pornography. My constituents are quite concerned that the
federal government has turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the
plight of children in this country. The government seems to be
protecting the pedophiles as opposed to the children.
BILL C-23
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a petition from the people of Haliburton area asking
parliament to withdraw Bill C-23 and affirm the opposite sex
definition of marriage in legislation, and ensure that marriage
is recognized as a unique institution.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition here signed by a number of Canadians
who are concerned about the continued existence of over 30,000
nuclear weapons on the planet Earth and the continued existence
of nuclear weapons, which poses a threat to the health and
survival of human civilization and the global environment.
Therefore, they call on parliament to support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention that will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present four petitions in the
House. These petitioners represent the communities of Barrhead,
Wildwood, Sangudo, and all points in between, including
Neerlandia.
The first petition deals with the issue of pornography and that
the government is doing nothing about the possession of child
pornography.
BILL C-23
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the last three petitions pray that the government repeal
Bill C-23 for a variety of reasons.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have two order paper questions,
Questions Nos. 28 and 29. Question No. 28 was presented on
October 15, 1999 and Question No. 29 was presented on October 18,
1999. Neither one has been answered yet. Question No. 29 was
first asked on March 24, 1999 as Question No. 227, which was
never answered.
These questions go to the heart of the mefloquine scandal and
the illegal and inappropriate use of that drug by the Department
of National Defence during the Somalia crisis.
I realize that it is very difficult and embarrassing for the
government to answer these questions but I think they are
questions that do deserve an answer. The drug did have an impact
on the behaviour of troops in Somalia and the public has the
right to have those questions answered promptly.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised
this issue on the floor within the last couple of weeks. The
answer that I would hold out today is not terribly different from
what I described the last time. A draft to the member's question
was prepared and it was returned for revisions. I am advised that
it is certainly in the pipeline and imminent.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
HEALTH CARE
The Deputy Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion
under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have provided you with the requisite letter and make a small
argument now for an emergency debate on the subject of Canada's
health care system.
The subject of debate would be the threat to Canada's health
care system posed by the imminent passage of bill 11 in the
Alberta legislature and the ramifications for all Canadians as a
result of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the
relationship between that agreement and the provisions of bill
11.
Parliament of Canada must have an opportunity to debate whether
the Alberta government has the right to endanger medicare for all
Canadians, as it is doing, given the provisions of NAFTA, and
what the Parliament of Canada should do about it, and what the
Government of Canada should do about it before bill 11 is passed.
1015
Time is of the essence. That is the nature of the emergency. It
is not something we can debate next week or the week after. It is
something that we can only debate now. The Parliament of Canada
should be seized with this subject as soon as possible. I
beseech the Chair to see the wisdom of this request.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has considered very
carefully the request put forward by the hon. member for
Winnipeg-Transcona and has concluded that while the matter is
obviously a serious one it is not one that in the view of the
Chair ought to be the subject of an emergency debate at this
time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
The House resumed from April 14 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1020
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip the vote on this motion will be deferred until
tomorrow.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I will be asking that the vote be further deferred until Monday
at the end of Government Orders.
However, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to
revert to the bill being debated at second reading stage, Bill
C-19, to recognize the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry who
would take the floor for 10 minutes. That would conclude the
debate on Bill C-19, if the House would give its consent.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the
House to revert to the second reading motion on Bill C-19?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think we would be willing to give that consent provided that our
member who wanted to speak would also have the opportunity.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be
negotiating across the floor and taking up the time of the House,
but following the intervention of the member for Elk Island the
government side would be agreeable to allowing the House leader
of the Canadian Alliance Party a 10 minute intervention after the
10 minute intervention by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Following further discussions we have an even more generous
offer to put to the House. If the House would give its consent,
we would go back to the second reading of Bill C-19 to allow
other members to contribute to this debate. Then we will deal
with the matter after the debate has been concluded.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is no longer before the
House, but we will pretend that never happened and go back to
second reading of Bill C-19. Is there unanimous consent to
proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1025
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to speak to Bill
C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other
Acts.
This is a bill of vital importance, not just for this House, but
also for the international community as a whole.
The purpose of this bill is to implement the Rome statute of the
international criminal court, adopted on July 17, 1998 in Rome,
after decades of debate and deliberation on the appropriateness
of creating an international criminal jurisdiction with the
authority to bring to justice those who have committed
international crime.
The efforts of the international community finally came together
in Rome in the summer of 1998, after repeated attempts had been
made to agree upon an instrument to fight international crime,
be it war crimes, crimes against humanity or the crime of
crimes, genocide.
I would like to draw particular attention to the contribution
made by Canada and some of its officials.
I am thinking, among others, of a friend, a distinguished
jurist, Philippe Kirsch, who chaired the plenipotentiary
conference that led to the Rome statute, and of a number of
individuals whose services were drawn on and whose hard work
during preparatory conferences and the Rome conference helped
bring this statute to life.
I am thinking specifically of John Holmes, Alan Kessel, Darryl
Robinson, Dominic McAlea, Kimberley Prost and Don Piragoff,
public servants I have met, at least some of them, who certainly
played a key role in having the Rome statute adopted for the
creation of an international criminal court.
I must, moreover, mention in this House, as I have in the case
of other debates pertaining to bills implementing international
treaties, that it is not entirely satisfactory to have a treaty
as important as this one, which we are asked to debate through
an enabling act, the ICC statute, not formally approved by this
House and not the subject a significant debate before Canada
signed.
It is true that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade spent one sitting reviewing the draft bill,
as it was worded at the time, and I was able to take part in
that exercise, since I was then a member of the committee.
However, hon. members probably did not have enough time to look
at the content of the statute, to express their opinions and to
state their views on it before it was adopted by the conference
and signed by Canada, before its ratification.
Again, it would be very desirable for the House of Commons and
its parliamentary committees to review international treaties
and proposed treaties during negotiations, so that in future
members of parliament can have some influence on negotiators, on
the content of these treaties and proposed treaties, before
Canada makes a commitment or expresses, through its signature,
its intention to comply in good faith with the international
treaties that it ratifies.
1030
There is currently before the House a private member's bill,
Bill C-214, which I introduced last year. Its purpose is to give
a more extensive role to parliament, to the House of Commons,
when it comes to international treaties, so that such treaties
are approved and then better promoted, introduced and published
by government authorities after their ratification, that is
after Canada has agreed to be bound by them.
There will be a third hour of debate on Bill C-214. I hope that
members of this House will allow the bill to be referred to a
committee and that they will support it at third reading stage.
As for Bill C-19, which I have examined closely, the short title
is the Crimes Against Humanity Act, a title which could be made
much more rigorous by including a reference to war crimes. This
bill focuses on prosecuting war crimes, which are not included
in the definition of crimes against humanity, unlike the crime
of genocide, which these crimes can be considered to include.
If I could make a suggestion, a more appropriate short title
would be the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
The purpose of the bill is to implement the international
criminal court statute provisions requiring implementation in
Canadian domestic law. It seems that this bill is viewed,
internationally, as adequate implementation of the Rome statute.
It is sometimes cited as a model of effective implementation of
the international criminal court statute. At the present time, a
number of parliaments worldwide must pass enacting legislation
before states can agree to be bound by it and the statute can be
implemented. It cannot take effect until 60 states have tabled
their instruments of ratification.
The bill has to do with offences committed in Canada. The
provisions in clause 4 are intended to correct, to a certain
extent, the situation in Canadian domestic law, which right now
does not permit prosecution of individuals for the crime of
genocide per se.
This bill repeals some provisions of the Criminal Code, namely
sections 3.71 and following, which allowed individuals having
committed the crime of genocide, as well as crimes against
humanity and war crimes, to be prosecuted for murder under
international law. However, clause 4 addresses a shortcoming of
Canadian law by bringing it in line with international
obligations and allowing prosecution under domestic law for
international crimes as defined under international law.
Besides, clause 4(3) refers to definitions provided in the Rome
statute, which are implemented under international treaty law
and which are inspired by customary international law.
Clause 6 of the bill, which is a very important provision, gives
Canada, through its courts, extraterritorial jurisdiction that
will allow judge people alleged to have committed war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide to be prosecuted in Canada.
1035
All this is in line with the Rome statute and customary
international law, which allows Canada and any other country, to
assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute people for
such serious crimes, so that they do not go unpunished.
Clause 6, which is both prospective and retroactive, contrary to
clause 4, which only applies to crimes committed after the bill
becomes law, will allow Canada to prosecute people for serious
crimes in its own courts of justice, which is absolutely in line
with the spirit and the letter of the Rome statute.
Besides, those provisions will be protected, despite their
retroactive nature, by section 11(g) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, pursuant to which people may be prosecuted
for crimes recognized under international law, even if the
prosecution is of a retroactive nature.
I would like to draw the House's attention to something that
would allow for a review of the contents of this bill. It is the
provision that clearly gives Canadian tribunals jurisdiction
over crimes committed outside the country. Clause 8(a)
recognizes that Canada has jurisdiction when crimes have been
committed by Canadian citizens or when the victims are Canadian
citizens. Clause 8(b) also provides that Canada may prosecute a
person if, at the time the offence is alleged to have been
committed, Canada could, under international law, exercise
jurisdiction over the person with respect to the offence on the
basis of that person's presence in Canada and, after that time,
if the person is present in Canada.
This is an example of the kind of universal jurisdiction that
may be exercised by the various states under international law,
but it could be broader.
This ought to be debated and discussed since, in this case,
universal jurisdiction could only be exercised over a person who
is present in Canada.
For example, this would prevent Canada from prosecuting someone
who is not present in Canada. It would prevent it from
prosecuting a person who is alleged to have committed
international crimes—whether it be General Pinochet, who
returned to Chile without having been brought to justice for
crimes of this type he allegedly committed. It would prevent
Canada from prosecuting other war criminals or persons who have
committed crimes against humanity or genocide, for example
soldiers from Rwanda not present in Canada.
It would be interesting, in examining the bill, to broaden the
scope of this particular provision so it is not limited to
persons who are present in Canada.
Canada—like other jurisdictions such as France, Spain and
Belgium, I think—should claim jurisdiction over persons even
though they are not present in Canada.
Extradition proceedings could help in this regard and allow
Canada, as we asked in this House in the case of General
Pinochet, to request the extradition of a person alleged to have
committed serious war crimes and perhaps to prosecute that
person.
1040
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois could, in due time, present an
amendment extending the scope of clause 8(b) so that Bill C-19
would allow a broader, universal jurisdiction. Canada could then
have jurisdiction over serious crimes such as genocide, war
crimes and crimes against humanity, thus ensuring that these
crimes will not go unpunished.
It is also interesting to note that the bill deals with a number
of defences that may be used by those accused of international
crimes covered in the bill.
Clause 14 provides that obeying orders of a superior is not a
defence. This seems to be consistent with existing international
law and compatible with the letter as well as the spirit of the
Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court.
Criminal Court
The purpose of many of the bill's provisions is to ensure that
certain obligations under the Rome Statute for an International
Criminal Court be given effect in Canadian domestic law.
There is, for example, the part concerning the proceeds of
crime, clauses 27 to 29 of the bill. There is also the part
concerning the Crimes Against Humanity Fund. This fund, if my
memory serves me right, was established under the Rome Statute
for an International Criminal Court. It is designed to help the
victims of crimes against humanity.
It would give the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services in particular a chance to pay into this fund the net
proceeds from the disposition of any property and fines
collected in relation to proceedings for an offence under the
Criminal Code.
By and large, this bill is a clear reflection of the obligations
that will flow from Canada's agreement to be bound to the Rome
Statute and the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In addition, the Bloc Quebecois reserves the right to examine
fully the provisions of this bill and to propose, if required,
amendments to ensure full conformity of the Canadian internal
law with the international criminal law, as modified by the
hopefully soon to come Statute of the International Criminal
Court.
The bill contains a number of consequential amendments to many
federal acts. For example, the Citizenship Act is greatly
affected by this bill. The Extradition Act is also greatly
modified. In the light of the Finta decision, a number of
amendments contained in this bill in relation to the Extradition
Act will clarify the situation arising from a controversial
decision that, according to some people, was enough to justify
corrections and amendments to the Extradition Act.
This bill also contains a part on conditional amendments. These
are amendments to the Citizenship Act. This act is currently
before this House since Bill C-16 is a rewrite of the
Citizenship Act.
1045
This overhaul of the act and the introduction of this new
proposed legislation would require additional conditional
amendments, in light of Bill C-19 on immigration, which at the
same time is under consideration in the House.
No doubt consideration should also be given to bringing forth
conditional amendments to another act also under consideration
in the House, an act that should be amended not in accordance
with provisions contained in other parts of Bill C-19, which are
in relation to the old act, that is Chapter I-30 of the Revised
Statutes of Canada, but in accordance with Bill C-31, which is
the proposed new Immigration Act presently before the House and
which we have examined earlier this week.
The international community is in the process of giving itself a
tool absolutely essential to ensure justice and the supremacy of
international law, especially international criminal law. The
action that Parliament will take by passing an act to implement
the Rome Statute will allow for the ratification of the Statute
of the International Criminal Court. The Bloc Quebecois hopes
for speedy ratification.
It will help ensure justice, peace and international security.
This is an important bill for the entire international
community.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in
the debate on Bill C-19. This legislation has been precipitated
by Canada's obligations under the Rome statute of the
International Criminal Court.
The bill deals strictly with three clearly defined offences:
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. As well, Bill
C-19 makes consequential changes to Canada's extradition and
mutual legal assistance legislation to enable Canada to comply
with its obligations to the International Criminal Court.
Bill C-19 will equip Canada with domestic legislation to
facilitate the prosecution by Canadian courts of the three above
mentioned crimes whether committed outside Canada or within our
borders. It also gives Canada the right to have the first crack
at the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of such cases at
home. We may also waive the right and extradite an accused to
the International Criminal Court.
The bill also affirms that any immunities otherwise existing
under Canadian law will not bar prosecution in Canada or
extradition to the International Criminal Court or to any other
international criminal tribunal established by resolution of the
security council of the United Nations. In other words, if an
individual is suspected of war crimes and is living in Canada,
then that individual will stand trial either in Canada if we
choose or before the International Criminal Court. If Canada
undertakes an extensive investigation and the individual is found
innocent of any charges, then that will satisfy the requirements
of the International Criminal Court.
Let me turn to the history and evolution of this initiative.
Since the Nuremberg trials in 1945, the international community
has been working toward the creation of a permanent international
criminal court. There is a lot of momentum worldwide for such an
undertaking. After years of preparatory negotiations and an
intensive five week diplomatic conference, the basis for the ICC
was adopted in Rome on July 17, 1998.
The International Criminal Court will be a permanent
international institution mandated to prosecute persons
responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
when national judicial systems fail to investigate or prosecute
such individuals.
The International Criminal Court statute will enter into force
when 60 states have ratified it.
1050
The ICC will be located in The Hague, Netherlands. The 18
judges of the ICC and the prosecutor will be selected on
qualifications similar to supreme court level appointments and
must be ratified by two-thirds of state parties. Their terms
will be for nine years. Judges may be removed by a similar
two-thirds vote.
The rules of procedure and evidence are currently being
negotiated through a series of meetings of a preparatory
commission which includes delegations from signatory states and
other interested states. An assembly of states parties will
ratify these rules of procedure and evidence.
Turning to the costs of this new court, at present we do not
know what this initiative will cost Canada. All member states of
the ICC will pay a fee for the creation, operation and management
of the ICC. The United Nations will contribute half of the
initial startup costs and will contribute financially when
specific cases are mandated by the security council. The
remaining costs will be shared equally by all states parties.
Some have projected that Canada's initial contribution could be
anywhere between $300,000 to $500,000. Once the ICC is up and
running, Canada could be asked to contribute $1 million to $2
million per year. In comparison, Canada's contribution to the
Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals for 1998-99 was $6.3
million.
I would like to raise some concerns and questions regarding this
new court. A permanent international body may become
unaccountable and may override the sovereignty of a nation's
legal and governance system. Although the ICC is to be
complementary to national courts, it will investigate and
prosecute a crime when the states with the jurisdiction are
unwilling to do so. This is clearly one way in which the ICC
could overrule the sovereignty of a nation.
The ICC has been structured so the sovereignty of nations will
remain primordial. It does so by requiring the enactment of
domestic legislation in each ratifying state which gives that
sovereign state both judicial equipment and the right to
prosecute suspected cases of a said crime domestically. Bill C-19
is Canada's version of that legislation. We can also choose to
waive the sovereign right to prosecute in our own court system
and send the case and the accused to the ICC.
It is my understanding that this right cannot be circumvented
unless we are unable or unwilling to use it, that is, there is a
deliberate fraudulent attempt to shield a suspect from
prosecution or that our rule of law has completely collapsed and
we have no government. That this assessment could ever be made
in the case of Canada is agreed among Canada's negotiating team
and justice officials to be simply unthinkable.
We also hope that this court does not lead to any proliferation
of judicial activism. Again we have been given assurances that
the mandate of the judges and the court is clear and the terms of
operation cannot be expanded. We trust this is correct.
One critical issue that stands out with this new court is that
the United States has not yet signed the Rome statute. We are
told the current mood in the United States Senate is to remain in
this position. There is an argument that without the United
States as signatory, the court will be very ineffective.
We must also be vigilant not to allow international law to
supersede Canadian law. Again we have assurances this cannot
happen.
The negotiations of the preparatory commission on rules of
procedure and evidence address critical and fundamental issues of
the ICC. They are not discussed or ratified in parliament.
Issues such as the definition of aggression and other terms, the
conditions of imprisonment, and judicial protocol are
controversial issues in the implementation of the Rome statute.
All of the negotiations should be subject to the input and
ratification of this parliament; otherwise our requirement that
the values of Canadians are adequately enshrined in law,
structure and procedure of the ICC may be in jeopardy.
There are two ways we can approach these concerns. We could
delay ratification until the negotiations are concluded and can
be ratified by parliament, or we could amend Bill C-19 to ensure
Canada's final accession to the ICC is subject to the
ratification of parliament regarding the rules and procedures of
evidence.
1055
Some conclude that individual tribunals would be superior to a
permanent existing ICC. A tribunal would examine a specific
case, render a verdict and then disband. However, these
tribunals have proven to be ineffective in tracking down
criminals and having the legal authority to prosecute criminals.
On that front the ICC is attractive.
The Canadian Alliance favours the prosecution of individuals who
commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. At the
same time we are very conscious of the need to protect our own
sovereignty and want assurances that this will be built into Bill
C-19.
As this bill proceeds, I suspect analysis of it particularly in
committee will look at such areas as what some interested parties
have called vague and imprecise definitions of offences. As well
there has been concern expressed about the specifics of crimes
committed in Canada as opposed to those committed outside Canada.
Bill C-19 requires a lot of study and review. I am confident
this debate and the following assessments made on the bill will
fashion a document that we can all accept.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: At the request of the chief
government whip, the vote on the motion before the House is
deferred until Monday at the conclusion of the time provided for
the consideration of Government Orders.
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 28, 2000, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
1100
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy today to rise to debate the budget
implementation act, Bill C-32. In my capacity as industry critic
I am quite concerned about the lack of progress on tax reduction.
I want to refer to the study we commissioned in the industry
committee and our dissenting opinion, which I will refer to with
regard to taxes and the ways in which we could become more
competitive in Canada.
In November of last year the Standing Committee on Industry
undertook a study on productivity. The study was initiated in
response to concerns expressed by many prominent economists and
business leaders who warned of the alarming productivity gap
developing between Canada and our major trading partner, the
United States, and in particular the gap which developed over the
past decade.
These leaders confirmed through statistical evidence what
Canadians instinctively already knew. Our standard of living had
fallen over the past 30 years and the rate of decline had
accelerated during the 1990s. Currently Canadians earn $9,000
less per capita than their American counterparts and that
disparity continues to grow.
Productivity is the measure of efficiency in which people,
capital, resources and ideas are combined in the economy, which
show up basically as our standard of living. From the 1950s to
the mid-1970s we had a tremendously high rate of growth in
productivity, approaching 4% per annum in terms of labour
productivity and 2% per annum in terms of multi-factor
productivity. Since 1973, however, Canada's growth in
productivity has hovered around the 1% level.
What does that really mean? The picture becomes much clearer
when we contrast the Canadian experience with that of our G-7
partners. At the end of the second world war Canada and the
United States were by far the most productive countries in the
world, but the levels of European countries and Japan have
converged with those of North America. This of course was
inevitable as the European and Japanese economies recovered from
the second world war.
However, the data is clear and unequivocal. The United States
remains the most productive country in the world, but Canada no
longer holds second place. That is a concern. Canada is the
only country in the G-7 that has not closed the gap relative to
the United States in terms of productivity. In 1976 Canada was
second in terms of productivity among the G-7 countries, but 20
years later, by 1997, Canada was fifth. Other countries are now
much closer to the U.S. and have overtaken Canada. Italy and
France are respectively the second and third most productive
countries in the world. Germany, despite the reunification of
the west with the east, is now the fourth most productive economy
in the world.
After hearing from dozens of witnesses the standing committee
tabled its 182 page report on productivity and innovation in the
House of Commons on April 11. The report did a good job in
providing a 30 year history of Canada's decline and documenting
our current situation, but it failed to identify the underlying
reasons for Canada's productivity decline. I say that it is a
failing in the report. That failure is a significant weakness in
the report and it prompted the Canadian Alliance members of the
committee to offer a dissenting opinion.
I believe that if we fail to understand or choose to ignore the
fundamental reasons for this decline it will impair our ability
to offer constructive solutions. The issues related to Canada's
productivity and weakened competitiveness are complex, to say the
least. Many factors, including external shocks to a country's
economy, can cause disruption. However, some countries, such as
the United States, are better able to adapt and restructure their
economies. The restructuring that took place in the U.S. in the
1980s enabled the Americans to lead the world in growth for much
of the 1990s, and that continues to the present. Canada,
however, did not enjoy that same level of growth.
For almost a century the Canadian and U.S. business cycles and
economies were synchronised and could be charted with no
divergence between the two. Between 1900 and 1980 Canada never
experienced a recession without a corresponding recession in the
United States. However, it is no small coincidence that Canada's
business cycle began diverging from that of the United States in
the late 1960s after the Canadian federal government expanded
rapidly and became more interventionist. The role played by
public policy in Canada during this period is a significant
factor which needs to be examined.
1105
I suggest that a fundamental shift in government policy in the
1960s and 1970s created the conditions that led to Canada's
decline in productivity and currency devaluation.
Over the years major social programs were introduced and the
federal government expanded through successive Liberal and
Conservative administrations. Changes made to the unemployment
insurance program, as an example, moved it away from the concept
of an insurance program to that of a social program function.
The result was an increase in Canadian unemployment rates,
several points higher than those in the United States.
Meanwhile, federal program spending continued to grow every
year, which had to be financed by tax increases and deficit
budgets. The accumulated deficits created a federal debt of over
$575 billion. Currently one-third of each tax dollar taxpayers
send to Ottawa is required to pay the interest on our national
debt.
Looking over the past 30 years, the Conference Board of Canada
told the committee that the Canadian way—Canada's traditional
economic and social programs established largely in the 1960s—is
unsustainable. The Liberal response to this crisis is very weak.
The committee report claims that the latest federal budget is
the answer to Canada's problems of productivity. While it did
propose some tentative steps to improve our productivity, the
budget is too little, too late, to resolve the problems caused by
30 years of misguided public policy.
Canada currently finds itself in a very competitive tax
environment worldwide and it is becoming more competitive all the
time. As such, the overdue tax cuts in budget 2000 are welcome,
but their value is hampered by long phase-in periods and other
half measures. For example, the corporate tax rate is not
scheduled to decrease until 2001 and then by only 1%, from 28% to
27%. The planned seven point reduction will not be fully
achieved until 2005.
As the United States, France and Germany continue to reduce
taxes and increase their productivity levels, Canada will
continue to fall behind. Canada currently holds the unenviable
position of having the highest personal tax rates as a percentage
of GDP of all the G-7 countries. Canadian tax rates in the
manufacturing and service sectors are becoming the highest in the
G-7, as rates in those countries continue to decline. Moreover,
the $86 billion in new government spending announced on budget
day clearly demonstrates that the priority of the federal
government is to continue to increase its program spending, which
is exactly the wrong thing to do.
The government claims to have taken decisive action in paying
down the national debt, but its current commitment of $3 billion
annually pales in comparison with the $13 billion handed out in
the form of grants and contributions each year. Even at $3
billion a year, it will take 191 years to retire the debt.
Meanwhile, half a percentage rise in interest rates would
increase charges to the national debt by $5 billion annually. We
know that interest rates are starting to rise.
Investors take small comfort from the tepid measures found in
the federal budget. In fact, bold measures are needed to restore
confidence in the Canadian economy. I agree with leading
Canadian economist, Pierre Fortin, when he advised that the best
answer for Canada's declining standard of living is to cut taxes
and pay down debt.
Investor confidence is a very important factor as companies seek
profit and increased productivity in this globally competitive
environment. Unfortunately, the signals generated by government
policies over the past 30 years have not instilled the confidence
required to increase that investment necessary to improve our
productivity and standard of living. As a result, the percentage
of foreign direct investment coming into Canada has steadily
declined over the past several years. Even Canadians are
increasingly looking beyond our borders for better opportunities
for investment.
From 1988 to 1998 foreign direct investment flowing out of
Canada rose more than six times. Meanwhile, incoming foreign
direct investment rose only two and a half times. In fact, by
1997 Canada had become a net exporter of foreign direct
investment.
Among other things, Canada's productivity decline and government
policy have led to the Canadian dollar becoming very weak and
some companies are relying on it to remain competitive. It is a
poor way to try to get ourselves out of this problem.
1110
As Jim Frank from the Conference Board of Canada said:
Surely to goodness...If 68 cents was a good idea, why don't we
try 50 cents? Depreciating our currency will not serve us
well....At some point there is a relationship between the cost
of stuff we import and consume and our currency—
I want to sum up by saying that Canada is the second largest
country in the world. It has a vital pool of human and natural
resources. We have untapped potential for growth, but we need
the proper environment to nurture that prosperity. I am
confident that Canada can regain that prosperity and
competitiveness; however, it will take strong leadership by
government to do that. Our solution 17 on tax reform is a way to
show confidence and we intend to introduce a confident budget
when elected in the House of Commons to form the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-32, an act to implement
certain provisions of the budget.
Having closely examined each component of the latest budget by
the Minister of Finance, we reached exactly the same conclusions
as we did on February 28 when it was brought down. We have much
criticism to level at it.
I would like to make one aside about the size and importance of
the surplus to come.
The people listening to us need to understand that when we refer
to the surplus we mean the overpayments the taxpayers of Quebec
and of Canada have made to the Minister of Finance. This has
merely gone to swell the annual surpluses that are largely used
for government propaganda. This money is also used to grease
the palms of friends of the party, also known as looking out for
one's buddies. The government has no control over at least part
of this money.
The surpluses the Minister of Finance is projecting for the next
five years are in the order of $90 billion or $95 billion.
Knowing the Minister of Finance and how he loves to fiddle with
the figures, and knowing how in the past he has deliberately
hidden the true situation of public finances, the validity of
his estimates are suspect.
It would be more accurate to speak of a cumulative surplus, over
the next five years, of more than $140 billion. For the
employment insurance fund alone, despite the decrease in
contributions in the last budget and the one before it, there
will still be a surplus of more than $6 billion. Employers and
employees are, therefore, paying too much in the way of
contributions.
Worse still, the majority of workers who pay into the fund while
employed are excluded from benefits. Only 42% of the jobless
can benefit, although 100% of them contributed while employed.
This is a disgrace. This is why there are stupendous surpluses
every year in the fund, like the average of $6 billion annually
over the past three years.
We were expecting a thorough reform of employment insurance.
My colleague, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, introduced a
general proposal to reform the employment insurance plan. Under
this proposal, all the bias in the plan, all the harmful aspects
of the plan that the Bloc Quebecois has criticized so often, all
the elements preventing the people who should benefit from the
employment insurance plan from doing so could be totally and
readily corrected.
It would even be possible to set aside a bit of a surplus
annually to ensure there would be something of a cushion in the
event the economy slows down. The cushion in the employment
insurance fund for the past four years has been over $26
billion. That is a lot. This is robbery, because the federal
government does not put a cent into it anymore. The employers
and the employees pay.
Worse yet, those who contribute the most, in these two
categories of taxpayers, are the small and medium businesses and
the middle income workers, because of the ceiling on
contributions.
Not only are the SMBs penalized by the federal tax system,
especially compared to big business, not only are middle income
workers penalized by the tax system and the various programs
they cannot access, but they are obliged to pay more than their
share of contributions to employment insurance.
1115
While the Minister of Finance has surpluses coming out his ears
and polishes his image as the possible next leader of the
Liberal Party of Canada, it is appalling that this man is
responsible for really botching a policy that had in the past
made Canada an example in the area of social programs.
This man, with his ambitions for the leadership of the Liberal
Party of Canada, has ruined the work of a number of important
politicians before him. He has wrecked the employment insurance
plan. He stayed firmly seated on his fanny when he was asked to
reform the tax system to make it a little fairer.
He did not do anything for the poor. He let the ship drift. Let
us not forget that he is a shipowner first and foremost, before
being a Minister of Finance.
This man's ambition is to become the leader of a country.
Imagine the catastrophe that could result if he were at the
helm. People often forget that he is the one responsible for the
increase in poverty since 1993, because of all the cuts he made
to employment insurance and social programs.
Considering the surpluses that are coming out of his ears, we
expected the Minister of Finance to fully restore transfers to
the provinces for social assistance, higher education and
health. But no. The minister earmarked only $2.5 billion, over
the next three years, while everyone was asking him to allocate
$3.7 billion immediately and to continue to do so every year.
This is far from restoring federal transfers to fund health,
higher education and social assistance to the levels they were
at before the man responsible for this chainsaw massacre came
into the picture.
For social housing, $54 million has been earmarked. The minister
was boasting, saying “I care about the poor”. It is hypocritical
to present things like that. The minister gave $54 million when
he knew full well—because of the representations that had been
made to him, by FRAPRU, among others—that a minimum of $1.7
billion this year was required for a minimum number of social
housing units.
Let us not forget that even if money has been put into social
housing since 1993, it is not for new units. It is not to meet
the needs of thousands of Quebecers and Canadians who are
getting poorer because of the Minister of Finance.
It is to maintain housing that has already been built. That is
the difference. There is also quite a difference between
$1.7 billion and $54 million.
I have a few words of congratulation for the Minister of Finance
with respect to the indexing of the income tax tables. Since
1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for the income tax
tables to be fully indexed. Why? Because taxpayers are being
robbed. Although the Minister of Finance does not rise in his
place, when bringing down the budget, and announce that he is
raising taxes, the government's coffers kept filling up at an
incredible rate because, since 1994, he has ignored our requests
to index the income tax tables.
And what has been the result? Since 1994, the Minister of
Finance, who has visions of leading the nation, has taken in
$17 billion of taxpayers' money—taken in and stolen, it boils down
to the same thing—because there is no indexation.
He might deserve some praise for what he has done in this year's
budget, but it took seven years and $17 billion stolen from
taxpayers before this Minister of Finance decided to act. This
is unacceptable.
Those who are worst off and those in the middle income category
will have to wait longer for tax breaks. With Canada's social
policies scrapped, the worst off will benefit later from this
huge sacrifice. The middle income earners, who have had billions
squeezed out of them to eliminate the deficit and build up the
surplus, will have to hold their breath too.
Do people realize what the real tax reduction will be this year
and next for a couple with one child earning $20,000? The tax
savings for this couple will be $106 this year and $269 the
next—not even a dollar a day.
The tax savings for a couple with two children with a family
income of $35,000 will be $115 this year and $195 the next.
If this is not thumbing their nose at people, what is it?
1120
A couple with two children and an income of $65,000 saves $485
in taxes this year, and $500 in 2001, which works out to about
$1.25 a day. This is really laughable. However, the buddies of
the ship-owning Minister of Finance, with their annual incomes of
$250,000 or more, will benefit this year from a tax savings of
$4,785. Next year, another $3,500 will have to be added to that
figure, because the 3% surtax is going to be gradually
eliminated.
We look at this on top of the enormous scandals at HRDC—the $3
billion hole, and that is just the amount we know about—the
Placeteco affair and the creation over the years of no fewer
than 80 government bodies which have no obligation to report to
parliament in any way and which have a budget allocation of more
than $10 billion, over which we have no control. We look at
this mismanagement, this misuse of funds that could have gone to
the disadvantaged and the middle-income earners. We look at the
Minister of Finance greasing the palms of his little buddies,
and we cannot do otherwise than to regret this latest budget and
all this pretence at lowering taxes.
In light of the analysis I have just presented, it can be seen
that, yes, there were tax reductions, but for the millionaires,
the peers and buddies of the Minister of Finance.
It is possible that these shipowners do pay taxes elsewhere, but
not in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, the Budget
Implementation Act, 2000.
I have spoken in the House in the past about the government's
failure to embrace the realities of a globally interconnected,
hypercompetitive economy that is writing new rules for the game
of economics. We do not write those rules. In fact we ignore
those rules at our own peril.
The government continues to play by yesterday's rules and to
foster the types of programs that were dubious 20 years ago but
today are recognized as being downright wrong. It refuses to
embrace some of the elements of tax reform and deregulation that
are necessary to prepare Canadians to embrace these realities,
not just to compete globally but to succeed globally.
I will speak to some specific elements of the Budget
Implementation Act, Bill C-32. The first is the increase of the
basic personal amount. In the budget the government is proposing
to increase the basic personal amount by $100 this year. This
works out to be a tax cut of about 33 cents per week or $17 per
year. That is about four cups of Starbucks coffee over the next
year for Canadians. I am sure Starbucks and all Canadians are
grateful to the government for this grudging, belittling,
ridiculous insult of a tax relief.
The plan we are looking at would effectively raise the basic
personal exemption over a period of time to $8,200. The fact is
that in the U.S. the basic personal amount at which one begins to
pay personal income taxes is not hit until about $11,000
Canadian. We are taxing the poorest of the poor in Canada. We
call ourselves a kinder and gentler nation, but the fact is that
in the U.S., our neighbour to the south, the greatest economic
superpower in the world, there is actually more compassion
extended to lower income Americans relative to the tax system
than what is afforded to Canadians by our tax system.
The Progressive Conservative Party task force which reported in
January would raise the basic personal amount to $12,000. We
would like to see that amount raised further, but there is a huge
difference from $8,200 to $12,000. It would liberate a number of
Canadians from the Liberal tax regime which is attacking them at
the very lowest levels of income.
One of the greatest disappointments in the budget was the
failure of the government to commit significantly to increasing
Canada's health and social transfers.
1125
I do not need to remind anyone in the House that the Liberal
government devastated health care in Canada by making draconian
slashes to health care, by reducing health care funding and by
putting health care in a crisis in every province in the country.
For the government, the finance minister and the health minister
to be condemning provinces as they try to work creatively under
the stress created by the government's draconian cuts to health
care and social transfers is hypocritical at best.
The government has been the Dr. Kevorkian of the Canadian health
care system. Through its indifference to the provinces and its
failure to fund properly health care in Canada, the government
has effectively almost euthanized the Canadian health care system
or the capacity of the provinces to provide the type of health
care system Canadians need in an increasingly expensive health
care environment. If the federal government wants to play a
meaningful role in working with the provinces and determining the
future of health care in Canada, it had better come to the table
with its chequebook.
There was a time that health care funding in Canada was shared
50:50. The federal government would provide 50% and the
provinces would provide 50%. At that time there was a real
partnership between the federal government and the provinces.
There was some legitimacy to the notion that the feds and the
provinces could work together on seeking new and innovative
solutions to health care.
Currently some estimates are that federal government
contributions are down to as low as 13%. It is very difficult if
one is only paying $1.30 of $10 worth of gas to tell the driver
where to take the car. The government is refusing to step up to
the plate and provide adequate funding and leadership to address
the complexities of health care in this very complicated period.
When the Canada Health Act was first introduced, health care
realities were fairly simple. Since then pharmaceutical costs
have increased to about 30% of total health care costs in Canada.
Most pharmaceutical costs are covered privately. With the rising
cost of pharmaceuticals and the increasing rate at which the
pharmaceuticals are comprising our overall health care spending,
we already have a two tier health care system. The federal
government is not addressing the rising cost of pharmaceuticals
and the composition of total health care costs as comprised by
pharmaceuticals.
The federal government is not addressing the biotech industry.
Increasingly there are very advanced and complex approaches to
health care, almost to the extent that miracles are possible.
However the cost of these health care miracles is immense. We
have to address what could actually be considered ethical issues
and work with the provinces on them.
Is it possible to have universal access to all new and advanced
therapies and treatments? Has the federal government worked with
the provinces to estimate what the cost would be to provide to
each and every Canadian with the total and utter extent of
treatments that are available to them in today's global health
care environment? These types of things have to be considered.
Currently our health minister is sounding less like a health
minister and most like an electioneering politician.
Unfortunately, until we see some real movement of the federal
government on the part of both the finance minister and the
health minister on the health care funding issue, I would suggest
that Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland and former Liberal
cabinet minister in this House, is correct when he says that the
government has missed the boat by not reinvesting significantly
in health care.
1130
Across Canada the medical associations, nurses associations and
provincial governments all agree that the federal government has
to take a more proactive and aggressive approach to health care
in Canada. It has to either butt out or butt in with more money
for investing in health care. Clearly the budget missed the
point on that.
In terms of the government's failure to embrace the importance
of general tax reform, it is important to point out that our
competitors in every country in the industrialized world are
using tax reform and tax reduction as a vehicle to greater levels
of economic growth and opportunity for their citizens.
Over the past 10 years Ireland's GDP on a per capita basis has
increased by 92%. During the same period of time the American
GDP per capita increased by around 20%. Canada's GDP per capita
increased by an anaemic 5%. Clearly, as citizens in other
countries are getting richer, Canadians are getting poor.
Productivity is the currency of the economic environment. If we
are allowing Canada to fall behind, effectively we are reducing
the standard of living of all Canadians not only now, but well
into the future. The Royal Bank of Canada's chief economist, John
McCallum, predicted not so many weeks ago that under current
trends Canada's standard of living would be approximately half of
that of the Americans, that within 15 years our standard of
living would be reduced to half of that of Americans.
The brain drain is a damning barometer of the performance of the
government. Over the last several years the number of people
leaving Canada to seek opportunities elsewhere in other countries
has gone from 16,000 per year to approximately 100,000 per year.
That is happening under the stewardship, or lack thereof, of the
government.
It is not just a matter of tax tinkering based on Liberal focus
groups and short term political polling. We need significant
levels of tax reform focused on doing what is right for Canadians
well into the next century, not simply poll monitoring focused on
Liberal fortunes in the next election.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the budget brought forth by
the government.
Once again the finance minister and his spin doctors are using
five year projections to exaggerate his changes and to sell
benefits to Canadians. It is too bad the government cannot be
straight with the public over just what the budget will or will
not do for the citizens of this country.
With a little more integrity and honesty the government would
have to inform the Canadian taxpayer that the announced tax cuts
for this year will already have been eaten up by recent increases
in the price of fuel to operate our motor vehicles. After all,
the tax cuts amount to about $10 a week and we have all seen how
much we now have to pay each time we pull up to the pumps.
With a little more clarity the government would tell Canadians
that the increase to the Canada pension plan premiums on January
1, 2000 was one of the largest tax grabs in the history of this
country. The government sings the praises of its $10 per week tax
cut, but says very little about the $8 a week tax increase to
cover its mismanagement of the Canada pension plan.
With a little more sincerity the government would inform
Canadians that it has done little if anything proactively to
address the $576 billion debt. The government keeps putting off
the reduction of the debt for some rainy day far into the future.
The finance minister has survived this albatross around our necks
solely because of the pace of the economy. Should the economy
ever slow down or even recede, we will be in big trouble for not
paying our bills when we had surplus capability. It is
unfortunate when we have a Prime Minister and a finance minister
who put off this problem until some time when they are no longer
around to tackle the consequences of their inaction.
As I say, the spin doctors have worked overtime to sell this
budget but Canadians are not buying.
It is no wonder politicians are ranked so unfavourably by
citizens. Even the government after years of good fortune and
years of fancy bookkeeping now admits that our revenues are
greater than our expenditures.
1135
I mentioned the fancy bookkeeping or creative accounting and
bring up the millennium scholarship fund as just one example. It
is still a wonder how the country's chief accountant was able to
write off a future year's expenditures in his current financial
year. At least we now have a balanced budget even in the eyes of
the finance minister and his strange accounting practices.
With a balanced budget the surtax should have been eliminated.
After all, its only reason for being was to address the deficit.
The deficit has been eliminated but the surtax remains and will
only be finally removed sometime in the future. This reminds me
of the GST. The government makes promises but fails to fulfil
them.
I fully appreciate that the budget process is primarily about
the money held by the government on behalf of its citizens. Maybe
the government should recognize this fact occasionally. It seems
to think the money belongs to it, the Liberal Party. Not too
long ago the Minister of Veterans Affairs had the temerity to
imply that the tax department was a Liberal Party institution. I
always assumed that government departments were supposed to
operate independently of the political arm of government. Perhaps
he let the cat out of the bag as to the real truth in Ottawa. I
would hate to think so as Canadians already have enough reasons
to despise the tax collector.
Getting back to the budget and the money process, the Minister
of Finance spends a great deal of time allocating money to this
department and that department, but he does not spend a great
deal of time ensuring the problems are corrected or that
ministers are efficient and effective with their allotments.
There appears to be little concern when the Minister of Human
Resources Development admits to billions of tax dollars having
been expended with hardly any checks and balances to ensure that
we obtained value for the money invested. It appears the
government views the taxpayer as a bottomless pit as the finance
minister added to the problem in this budget by giving HRD more
money to waste. As the saying goes, only in Canada you say. HRD
should have been dramatically reduced in funding instead of being
rewarded. It is a disgrace.
Let us break our budgetary process into very simple terms. Over
the next five years the Minister of Finance projects he will have
in excess of $119 billion from his excessive taxation policies.
We all know how conservative the minister becomes when he
projects his revenues. There is at least $119 billion that
taxpayers are being forced to pay in excess of what this money
grabbing government needs to operate. This includes the billions
of dollars that are mismanaged, written off as bad debts and
spent like the proverbial drunken sailor. There will be $119
billion of excess taxation over the next five years.
This $119 billion includes the $5 billion per year the finance
minister continues to overtax through the employment insurance
fund. There is a surplus of $30 billion in the fund but the
government continues to overcharge workers in order to fund pet
projects. The minister likes to point out cuts to employee and
employer contributions over the past number of years. The simple
fact is that there is an enormous surplus and there is absolutely
no valid reason to continue to overtax workers.
The minister should be absolutely ashamed of his actions. He
overtaxes citizens to the tune of $119 billion and then tries to
buy them off by giving back a few tax breaks. The rest is used
to perpetuate the Liberal legacy of spend, spend, spend. And we
wonder why we are $576 billion in debt. And we wonder why we are
facing a brain drain.
As an aside, I note that the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance have been noticeably quiet lately about the brain drain.
Last year they said there was no such thing. They appear to have
finally clued in.
Speaking of being clued in, where was the government prior to
the budget? In the budget there was very little for health care.
Now the Liberals seem to understand that health care is the
highest priority among Canadians. The provinces are in desperate
situations and have been demanding to meet with the Prime
Minister.
Two tier health programs are now once again threatening our
universal health care system. What strikes me as very
questionable is that the health minister says that he wants to
consult the provinces and additional financial resources are
available. If more funds are available, why were they not
included within the budget just a few weeks ago? A national plan
seems to be seriously lacking.
In essence the government deserves very little praise for its
accomplishments over the past seven years. Yes, when it took
power in 1993, it faced a very shaky financial picture. Canadians
were grossly overtaxed, government was far too big and we were in
a deficit position as the revenues were less than the
expenditures.
The government likes to blame the Mulroney government for all our
financial ills, but I seem to recall that it was the Trudeau
Liberal government that started us on this downward spiral that
will take generations to rectify.
1140
Through a little bit of cost cutting but primarily through a
significant change in world economic growth and significant tax
increases to an already overburdened taxpayer, this country was
able to balance the budget. Canadians owe very little to the
Liberal government for our present economic outlook. The deficit
was conquered solely on the backs of Canadian taxpayers.
I would like to go on especially on such an important topic as
the budget but my time is limited. I would like to mention the
new money provided to the RCMP and I would like to talk about
border security problems. In both cases the government has put
more money to the problems.
The government created the financial disaster within the RCMP
when it gave members a long overdue raise in salary but then
forced the organization to fund the raise from its existing
budget. This resulted in the closing of the training academy and
resulted in shortages to the extent that the RCMP had difficulty
in putting fuel into its vehicles and even into buying tires for
its cars.
As to the border security problems, money is not the sole
solution.
Unfortunately, the government has no other solutions to the
problems of the country. There is no plan. There is no vision.
We continue to ride on the seat of our pants and hope that the
problems are solved by themselves. Canadians expect much more.
The government has gotten very old and very tired.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak to budget 2000, which may be described as
failing to meet the needs of the people and should have taken
into account all the problems facing the people of Canada and
Quebec.
The federal government failed to do a very important thing: to
restore the social transfers throughout Canada. In 1995,
$48 billion in cuts to the social transfer to the provinces were
forecast; in 1999, we have reached $30 billion in cuts.
This is money for health, education and income security that has
been cut.
We would therefore have preferred to see happen what we have
called for on a number of occasions, namely the return of the
Canada social transfer to better support the provinces, which
provide the frontline services to the public. So, $3.7 billion a
year was sought by the Bloc Quebecois even before the budget was
presented. What the Minister of Finance delivered was
$2.4 billion over five years, in trust, for the provinces to
spend as they need.
We know that this practice of the government of putting money in
trust for health does not permit the provinces to develop a long
term strategy to better meet the needs of the public.
At present, the health program is in a state of crisis
everywhere in Canada, and it is often said that the need is
greater than our ability to meet it. Still, some money will need
to be invested after the government has reconsidered its way of
doing things in the health sector.
In light of such factors as the ageing population, the new
techniques to adequately deal with emergencies and health
problems, and the increase in poverty, which requires more
prevention work than in the past, I say that we now find
ourselves in this situation because the government has been
accumulating a social deficit and letting the public down for
six years. This is why the situation is so disastrous in the
country.
Because of all the cuts made to the Canada social transfer,
Quebec has been experiencing a shortfall that has prevented it
from hiring 3,000 doctors, 5,000 nurses and 5,800 teachers.
Let us not forget that income security recipients could have
received an extra $500 annually.
1145
This is a federal government initiative that is far from
pleasing the provinces, which are faced as a result with
increased demands and an acute problem in health and education.
The school drop-out phenomenon tells us that we need more
teachers, helpers and educational psychologists.
The federal government's underfinancing has been condemned by a
number of stakeholders in health and education. Social rights
advocates also demand a greater degree of fairness to ensure
adequate financial assistance.
So, regarding the Canada social transfer, it is a big zero in
terms of this government's social concerns. This is the mark
that I would give to the Liberals.
We noticed a second thing about this budget. It is unacceptable
that the government has not budged on EI. The Bloc Quebecois,
through the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, proposed a series of bills that would improve the
government's approach to eligibility for employment insurance.
It is no longer insurance when six people out of ten do not
qualify. And there are all sorts of reasons why they do not.
We wanted to adopt a reform that would take the market into
account, but here again I think we have our heads in the sand.
What we are seeing now is people trying to cope with insecure
and atypical jobs with few social benefits. When people no
longer have EI to help keep them afloat until they find another
job, it is a disgrace.
The government knows perfectly well what is needed to correct
the situation. We know that in the meantime Treasury Board
coffers are brimming over with more than $30 billion from the
pockets of workers and employers throughout Quebec.
This is unacceptable and, once again, we know only too well that
what the federal government likes to do is build up its revenue
and its room to manoeuvre with an eye to an election so that it
will get the biggest political bang for its buck.
So, there is EI and the Canada social transfer, and I would add
social housing.
It is unacceptable to see how the government has, since 1993,
totally abandoned the help families and single mothers have been
calling for, along with low wage earners who can no longer
afford to pay the rent, and who often have to pay 30%, 40% and
even 50% of their incomes to keep a roof over their heads.
These are alarming figures to the percentage of the population,
of single parents and low income families who cannot find a
decent place to live at a price they can afford.
In December, with great fanfare, a project was announced which
will include the homeless and the street people. There was talk
of a bill that would involve the major cities of Canada. As far
as Quebec was concerned, there was talk of Montreal and Quebec
City, but there was nothing for the regions.
The project is being re-evaluated. Now they say there would
probably be something for the regions as well.
With $305 million over three years, this is merely a drop in the
bucket given the pressing need. It is hoped that the program
which has been created will also take into account the realities
of Quebec as far as assistance with social housing is concerned.
All Quebec community groups comprising the membership of FRAPRU
are calling for 1% of the budget, which represents $1.6 billion
yearly, for five years.
1150
This is a far cry from the $8 billion the various organizations,
and we in the Bloc Quebecois, had called for in order to
properly deal with the social housing issue.
The groups have received the message of the Minister of Finance
loud and clear, when he plays to the crowd at major
international conferences, talking of how we must think of the
disadvantaged, that globalization should apply to the poor as
well as to the rich, that poverty must be taken into account.
It is unacceptable that, despite the three measures in which the
government had room to manoeuvre—much more than what was done
in the last budget—to properly respond to the whole problem of
the gap between the rich and the poor, nothing was done.
In another area, that of taxation, the tax tables have been
indexed. The government did not go far enough in cutting the
taxes of low income earners. A single person earning $20,000
will pay $2 less in taxes in 2000-01. The person will pay a huge
$14 less in taxes in 2004.
Here again there is very little for people with low incomes.
There is nothing either for people on welfare, nothing for those
wanting better care or prevention. In the meantime, the Liberal
government wanted to ensure it had a lot of manoeuvring room in
an election period, so that it could spend for home care and for
other forms of help.
I always say that the federal government is more concerned with
being returned to office in an election than with going after
the real problems and, in the end, meeting the needs of the
people.
I am currently touring Quebec to listen to what people have to
say on the problem of poverty and the social safety net.
Clearly, the federal government is evading its responsibilities
to provide proper funding in this area through channels of
investments; funding is inadequate and often non existent. That
is what we see.
The Bloc Quebecois said that there was $95 billion in surplus,
but I believe the figure is much higher. The government should
have given us a social budget, and not—
The Deputy Speaker: I apologize for interrupting the hon.
member, but her time is up.
[English]
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, speaking of the very sharp
contrast between the tax and spend Liberal federal government and
the fiscally innovative and prudent way that the Government of
Ontario, the Mike Harris Tories, runs its finances, I want to
remind the federal Liberals of something that is occurring in the
country right now. I want to read this for their benefit.
An article in the Globe and Mail yesterday stated
“Ontario is on top of the world. Canada's economic heartland
has put behind it almost 30 years of deficits, decline, bad
government, unsound investments and painful restructuring and
emerges as one of the most successful economies in North America,
and in the world”. This is from the Globe and Mail, which
is known to be somewhat friendly to the Liberal government of
late.
The article went on to state “The latest calculations in
finance minister Ernie Eves' fifth budget reveal that the
province's economy last year grew by 5.7%”—and get this, Mr.
Speaker—“better than anyone had expected, better than anywhere
else in Canada, better than in the United States, better than any
nation in the group of seven”. Imagine that.
1155
Why are the citizens of Ontario blessed with such an incredible
economy? Let me give an example. The article continued
“Ontario celebrates the economic fruits of four years of
measured, comprehensive income and property tax reform”.
Translated, that means tax cuts.
“Thanks in part to those tax cuts, real disposable income over
the past three years in Ontario increased by 11.6%, double that
of the rest of the country. Corporate profits rose last year by
22.3% and real consumer spending rose 4%. An economy like that
can generate 200,000 net new jobs in a single year”, which,
surprise, surprise, Ontario did in 1999.
Contrast that with the Liberal government. Since 1993 there
have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 to 60 individual
tax increases. The average disposable family income has
decreased since 1993 by over $4,000. The average disposable
income of Canadian workers has decreased by about $2,200.
The Liberals simply do not get it. They believe that the way to
increase the tax revenue in government coffers is not to cut
taxes, like most people in the real world would assume, to
stimulate the economy. If taxes were cut citizens would have
more money in their pockets to spend. Consumer spending would
increase. Investors would invest in the economy, set up
manufacturing plants and create jobs.
No, the Liberal philosophy is “We will simply hold the magic
tax lever. In order to balance our budget we do not really have
to grow the economy. We will let Ontario do that for us, or in
spite of us. We will just wring that money out of the people of
Canada, the businesses of Canada and the investment community”.
That is what they have done.
That is how they got the money to balance the budget; not
through prudent fiscal planning, but riding on the backs of the
province of Ontario and the province of Alberta.
When Mike Harris and Ralph Klein formed their governments they
said “We are going to get the finances of this country in shape.
We are going to use a tried and true formula which we know has
worked in numerous jurisdictions and countries around the
world”.
That formula is simply this. Lower taxes equal a more buoyant
economy. Higher taxes equal a sluggish economy. The government
picked the first one. It was so simple, but the government does
not get it.
In the last budget the finance minister claimed that he was
going to give Canadians $58.4 billion in tax relief over five
years. That sounds pretty good on the surface. We could almost
get excited about it. Here is the real truth. From a $58.4
billion gross tax relief claim, we have to take away $7.5 billion
over five years for social spending, which is the child benefit.
Then we have to add to that $29.5 billion in increased CPP
premiums because the Liberal government, which for so many years,
unfortunately, has been in office in this country, has mismanaged
the Canada pension plan since 1965 when it was introduced.
This is a good one. The solicitor general is going to love this
one. The government has said that it will provide $13.5 billion
in tax relief.
It plans to schedule $13.5 billion in tax relief over the next
five years. It plans on doing this but it will not do it so that
it means $13.5 billion in tax relief or a tax cut.
1200
For the benefit of the former parliamentary secretary of
finance, the Minister of Health and the solicitor general, here
is a simple formula. Let us say that I was a taxpayer earning $1
a year and paying taxes on that. The government says that it
will, let us say, give me 13.5% in tax relief. I say
“Whoopee”. However, what it means is that the government will
not increase my taxes by 13.5% and therefore I will have a tax
break. I look at my pay stub and say “Gee whiz, I did not get a
tax break. All I got was no increase”. In Liberal terms that
somehow translates into a tax break.
Let me talk about a couple of other things that the Liberal
government has told us about its budget and the way it runs the
country fiscally. All through this it has tried in vain to
portray itself as being the caring and generous party of Canada.
In the meantime, since 1993 it has cut $25 billion out of the
Canadian health and social transfer. Does that sound like a
caring, generous government? I do not think so.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a wise person sitting in that
chair and I know that you probably get it before some of the
ministers here. This generous, caring government cut $25 billion
out of the CHST.
The government says it will end bracket creep. That is not a
reduction in tax. It only means that a regular scheduled tax is
again not going to occur. All the time the government has blown
its spending budget. Every year since 1993 it has spent more
than what it said it would. It basically adds up to a Liberal
sucker tax cut, if I can use that term, or, in better terms, a no
break tax break.
Canadians are waiting for it and they have not received it.
While they look at the performance of the provinces of Ontario
and Alberta, they say to themselves “Why does this Liberal not
get it? Why can it not follow the example?” I hate to tell
working Canadians but this government has never gotten it and
never will get it. The only way Canadians will get substantive
tax relief is by electing in the next federal election a Canadian
Alliance government to sit on that side and bring in the tax cuts
that they so dearly deserve.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today
to speak to the government's budget implementation act, Bill
C-32, mostly because it gives the members of the Canadian
Alliance another chance to poke holes in that big myth out there
that the Liberal government is a prudent manager of the nation's
tax money, to use the finance minister's term.
The fact is that a number of words may be used to describe
Liberal economic management. I would use unimaginative,
intrusive, counterproductive, ad hoc and so on, but prudent is
not a word that fits the real story of this budget or any other
in the last few years.
Bill C-32 has a number of components that taken in isolation can
be argued to have or not have merit depending on the application.
As a whole, they reveal two things about this Liberal government.
It really does not have a clue about what it takes to build a
greater country and it has no intention of giving up its ability
to dictate and intrude in the lives of Canadians or in the
activities of the provincial governments. He who has the money
makes the rules.
1205
Let us look at these pieces. On the positive side of the ledger
is a provision for one year versus the now standing six month
maternity leave. This is a nod to the fact that parents should
attend to the raising of their children in the first crucial
months of their young lives. However, since only about 30% of
Canadian mothers qualify for the six month maternity leave now,
it really begs the question: Why increase it? Why not put 60%
into the six month slot? This leaves single income families,
self-employed parents and many part time workers out of that
loop.
There is a better solution, solution 17 to be exact, and I will
get to that a bit later.
There are provisions in this legislation to give the Minister of
National Revenue more authority—scary fact—to pounce on
Canadians who are either trying to avoid the GST-HST levy or are
having trouble figuring out what to charge it on. The rules keep
changing. I know the members opposite will say it is the former.
This measure is just meant to catch the unscrupulous. When did a
qualification like that ever slow down a tax collector? The
examples of ordinary, law-abiding Canadians, small business
people, who find themselves in a kangaroo court over paperwork
screw ups or whatever are legion. We cannot expect that to
improve until the whole system is overhauled.
In any case, what happened to the Liberal promise to scrap or
get rid of the GST? Seven years later the GST is dinging
Canadians for over $46 billion a year. Out of that figure, it
gives back $24 billion in rebates, which makes one wonder why it
takes that much in the first place. Why not reduce it to 5% or
take it off things like reading materials or whatever? That
would require imagination and political will and we do not see
that. Let us not forget that the Liberal government was supposed
to scrap the whole thing anyway. We should not expect any action
on this very soon. We will have to continue to pay it.
I want to make another point about the GST before I move on. In
the 1995-96 budget the finance minister pre-booked nearly $1
billion for transitional assistance to provinces that were going
to harmonize their sales tax with the GST. The problem was that
at the time no one had signed on to this harmonization scheme and
of course no money changed hands that year.
In 1996-97 the Canada Foundation for Innovation received $800
million before it even existed. In 1997-98 the millennium
scholarship fund received $2.5 billion. This money walked out
the door despite the protests of provinces, opposition parties
and even the students it was supposed to help.
In 1998-99 almost $4 billion in pre-booking went on, including
$2.5 CHST funding that does not actually get to the provinces all
at once but over four years. That is not a very big amount when
we break it down over four years. We cannot make a big splash
unless we are willing to throw a big wad of taxpayer money
overboard.
The big problem is that the finance minister's shenanigans
throws into question the real state of the country's books. The
auditor general attaches a reservation to the accounts, which is
the harshest criticism an accountant can level at the government.
He saw that the Liberals were deliberately overstating the
deficit and using taxpayer money for the very political purpose
of making grand, empty gestures and claiming to be wonderful
managers. There was no money for tax cuts or debt reduction.
Just monuments and increased spending.
Members opposite like to defend the government's largesse by
saying that it is spending on education. In reality, only 7% of
university students in this country get in on the millennium
gravy train and many of them have discovered that the taxpayer
money from the feds only displaces money from other sources. That
is a big point. There are bursary and scholarship programs out
there already. Why invent new ones unless we are trying to build
a monument to somebody, and the Liberals do such a poor job of
it.
I know a 14 year old student from my riding who has qualified
for a $16,000 scholarship to a very good school in Montreal. His
parents have recently found out that they have to pay $4,000 in
income tax for him to qualify for that scholarship. The
government gives with one hand and rips it back with another. The
family is beginning to find out that they cannot afford to send
their child to that school. It is cost prohibitive because of the
tax law. This is absolutely ridiculous.
In section 3 of this bill, the federal government has to take
back the Canada student loans. A story circulated a few months
ago that banks would get over $100 million to pay for defaults
and costs. I can tell the House that my constituents were upset
to hear that the billion dollar banks would be bailed out with
taxpayer money. It turns out that the federal government pays a
premium to these banks for them to co-operate in the student
loans program. The situation remains murky as to who pays what
in the end. The new program may cost $155 million versus the $75
million under the previous set up. This is more taxpayer money
flushed. The Montreal Gazette reported on that.
We are aware that students are carrying $9 billion in loans
right now and, despite publicity to the contrary, most students
do pay back their loans. They are good citizens.
1210
Considering the long term value to the economy of higher
education, one would think that the Liberals would come up with a
better plan than to place responsibility for doling out this
money in the hands of the overworked HRD ministry, as we see in
part 3 of the bill.
If the federal government feels compelled to join with the
provinces in the education field, or compete with them, which
seems to be the Liberal way, then it should offer a plan to
alleviate student debt rather than add to it.
In view of the HRD track record, what assurances can we have
that money will only go to people in need and to encourage our
best and brightest to pursue legitimate courses of study? After
all, this is the same government that defends the funding of dumb
blonde joke books, porno films and displays involving dead
rabbits.
There is a bright side, I guess, for the students, and I suspect
the burdensome finance minister's tax system has a secondary
purpose. By driving our best young graduates down to the United
States, he assures them that they can make more money, get to
keep more of it and pay back their Canadian student loans with a
more valuable dollar. Our dollar is worth less than 67 cents
today.
If I thought the finance minister was that clever maybe I could
find an excuse to applaud him. However the real reason for the
complex, archaic, confusing and unworkable tax system, which Bill
C-32 barely tinkers with, is that it continues to allow the
Liberals to indulge their overarching ambition to control the
lives of as many people as they can.
Taxes are not just government revenue, they are power; power to
pick losers out of the marketplace and keep them limping along,
and power to reward loyal supporters. The old adage that the
government picks losers and losers pick government is certainly
reinforced in a lot of the things being brought out in question
period lately.
It is not a prerogative that the Liberals are about to give up
because they distrust individual choices. They fear
entrepreneurship and they despise the fact that provinces, like
Ontario and Alberta, are succeeding with 21st century politics
while the Liberal government is stuck trying to make its 1960's
policies work.
Part 6 of the bill includes provisions for eliminating bracket
creep. It also raises the foreign content restrictions on RRSPs.
That is great for the Liberals. Welcome to the 1990s. These
ideas have been kicked around for the last 10 or 12 years. If we
allow them to borrow more of our policies like that, we might
even nudge them into the next century, though of course they
would not be on that side of the House to enjoy it. The Canadian
people will leave them behind.
The Liberals seem to think that the tax changes they are making
are in isolation in the country. Unfortunately they are not. We
are still coming up short when it comes to the G-7 ratings and
most of the other countries around the world. They are making
changes far faster than we are, and in the right direction.
My colleague from Medicine Hat has long been advocating the
removal of the foreign content restriction on Canadian savings
plans. While this country has incrementally lost ground to the
U.S. economy, Canadians have been penalized billions of dollars
in lost opportunities. Now that the stock markets everywhere are
becoming increasingly volatile, the Liberals say “feel free to
risk your retirement in other countries”. They are a day late
and a dollar short, but even worse, they have the nerve to turn
their stubborn vices into a new found virtue.
We have been warning them for years that bracket creep was
eroding the values of Canadian tax deductions, even while their
own experts complained that Canadian net incomes were falling.
Finally they decided to come clean and try to take the credit for
reforming one aspect of a flawed tax system. Some $10 billion
have been unfairly raked in by bracket creep alone. One million
low income Canadians were dragged onto the tax rolls while
another two and a half million found themselves paying outrageous
rates on their few dollars of earnings.
The Liberals will want us to congratulate them for lower taxes
but I am afraid we will have to hold our applause. Like all
promises by this government, lower tax rates are today's headline
and tomorrow's excuse.
Solution 17 will work to fix all this, and part of that solution
17 is increasing the basic personal deduction to $10,000 for both
the husband and wife. A $3,000 credit for every child, real
values.
Anyone who believes the government's budget spin should take a
reality check. People should look at their pay stubs and judge
for themselves. The real measure is whether or not we are
gaining or losing.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am glad to be here to speak on Bill C-32 today.
Although we are close to the end of the debate, it is good to get
one's two cents worth in, particularly right after tax season
when it is all that many Canadians will have left as a result of
the tax and spend policies of the Liberal government.
We just had a budget introduced in Ontario that gives
significant tax relief. On the heels of that budget, there was a
dinner in Toronto last night at which every leader of a major
Conservative-minded, Conservative policy political party, were in
attendance.
We note that the leader of the Tories at the far end of the
building was not there. We thought maybe Joe Clark did not
consider himself to be a Conservative. We have been saying that
for quite some time.
1215
The reason our taxes are so high is that the Liberal government
is not really in control of spending. Since I am deputy critic
of Indian affairs I thought I would talk about some of the
uncontrolled and misdirected spending occurring in that area with
which I am most familiar.
In committee recently it is interesting to note that members of
all parties have begun to speak out on the mismanagement of
resources and the wasted lives of Canada's aboriginal people
despite massive government spending that is equal to or exceeds
the amount spent on other Canadians. Spending on elementary and
secondary education of Indian children is in the region of $976
million annually. This is second only to social assistance in
the amount of $1.097 million. That is a lot of money. The money
spent on education amounts to 21% of all spending by Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
In chapter 4 of the latest report of the auditor general he
pointed out that money spent on aboriginal education was not
being properly accounted for. The report makes statements like:
The report goes on to say:
It is noteworthy that education funding and costs may be
different from each other. For example a March 1999 study
concluded that it is not possible to determine how education
funds provided by the Department for First Nations schools are
actually spent...We reported similar concerns in our previous
audits of funding arrangements between the Department and first
Nations.
I note the use of the plural of audit. In section 4.65 he says:
We could not find any separate cost per student analysis for
First Nations elementary and secondary schools; nor could we find
information that identified per student costs paid directly to
provincial authorities.
I have spoken to a couple of school boards in my riding about
that same issue, where funds have not found their way to the
school board responsible for educating the children who have
moved in off the reserve. It is getting to be a major issue.
Moving on to section 4.66, the auditor general again raised the
issue of funding by saying:
What can I say? That 15 year old information is still being
used to base spending. The Minister of Finance is raising funds
to transfer for Indian education based on 15 year old
information, which is a complete waste of taxpayer money.
Special needs students are a special responsibility of society,
and here is what the auditor general reported on this area:
In one region of Canada the amount spent on special needs
children was $581 per year for all students. In another costs
range from $2,047 per special needs student to $65,650 although
there was no mechanism in place to ensure that the needs of those
students were being met.
What can we say about that? Why should Canadian taxpayers be
happy about statistics like those? These figures are not out of
the air. They are actual statistics used by the auditor general
in making his report.
1220
The finance department collects taxes from all Canadians to fund
education for Indians. It is necessary to ensure that the taxes
and other funds collected are well spent. Mismanagement of
public funds is one of the main reasons taxes are so high.
Repayment of Canada's national debt which stands at almost $580
billion is negligible.
We have been speaking about the money side of it, but the
numbers only tell half the story about Indian education. The
latest auditor general's report uncovers a human tragedy.
Students are just not getting the education they need to succeed
in society. Their dropout rates are far higher than normal.
They are not moving from high school into jobs.
The dropout rate before completion of grade 9 is 18%, whereas
the rate for all Canadians is 3%. For Indian youth between the
ages of 18 and 20 who left school the rate is 40% and 16% for the
Canadian population. For Indian youth between the ages of 18 and
20 who graduated the rate is 30% whereas for all Canadians it is
63%. The population with at least a high school education is 37%
for Indians and 65% for all Canadians.
Canadians are paying a lot of money in the form of the millions
of dollars the finance minister's bracket creep has brought into
the taxation system. This includes people from the first nations
and immigrants. It includes all taxpayers from teenagers with
after school and evening jobs to people past retirement age who
are still working and everyone in between, the rich and the poor.
People have been pushed into higher tax brackets and are paying
more and more money for results that just do not amount to
anything. It is a disaster for the human beings involved in this
kind of program. We should all be ashamed of it. I certainly
am.
What can we say about the government when it comes to other
things like debt repayment? Does debt repayment amount to
anything? Not at a bit. No homeowner or businessman would be
permitted to take such a cavalier attitude toward debt reduction.
Let us imagine what would happen if people with mortgages on
their houses were permitted to tell the bank how much they were
going to pay. What would happen if they could walk into a bank,
reach into their pockets or wallets and pull out some change?
What would happen if they counted out a few bills, tossed them
down and said that is what they were paying on their home
mortgages? They would not even get out of the bank without the
manager grabbing on to them and saying that they need to sit
down, sign something and make a plan to get out of debt.
When people get too far in debt I am told counselling is
available. Maybe we should send the finance minister for
counselling to figure out how to handle Canada's debt. The
government is putting a mortgage on the future of our young
people. Anybody who deals in mortgages knows that is a dead
hand, that we cannot move. That is the way of the future.
Unless the Minister of Finance gets a grip on Canadian taxation
and allows the economy to get moving, we will pass on to our
children a non-performing economy and a country that will be
better to leave if future economic prospects mean anything. The
best alternative is a Canadian Alliance government, and that is
what will happen after the next election.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
1225
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The vote on the
motion will be deferred until Monday, May 8, at the end of
Government Orders.
* * *
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of Bill C-22, an act
to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, to
establish the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre
of Canada and to amend and repeal certain acts in consequence, as
reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions
in Group No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on the
amendment to Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Amendment agreed to)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is on Motion
No. 2 as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 2, as
amended, carried.
(Motion No.2, as amended, agreed to)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is on the
amendment to Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the
amendment carried.
(Amendment agreed to)
1230
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is on
Motion No. 3 as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 3, as
amended, carried.
(Motion No. 3, as amended, agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If I am not mistaken, the vote on Motion No. 3 will apply
to Motion No. 4. I need clarification of that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The vote was on
Motion No. 3, as amended, and therefore Motion No. 4 is adopted.
[Translation]
I will now put the motions in Group No. 3 to the House.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-22, in Clause 71, be amended
“71. (1) The Director shall, on or before Septem-”
“(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall include
a copy of the instructions and regulations governing the exercise
of powers and the performance of duties and functions under this
Act which could affect human rights and freedoms.”
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you would find, if you recognized the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, that we are
ready to move an amendment to the motion put forward by the
member from the Bloc Quebecois.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I propose that I read
all the motions in this group and then I will recognize the
parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-22, in Clause 71, be amended
“71. (1) The Director shall, on or before Septem-”
“(2) The annual report stands referred to the committee of
Parliament that is designated or established for that purpose.
The committee shall review the report and the operations of the
Centre and report to Parliament within 90 days after the tabling
of the annual report by the Minister or any further time that
Parliament may authorize.”
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 40 on page 37 the
following new clause:
“71.1 (1) The Director shall, on or before September 30 of
each year following the Centre's first full year of operations,
submit a report to the Privacy Commissioner on the measures taken
by the Centre to ensure the confidentiality of any personal
information obtained in the course of its operations.
(2) The Commissioner shall, within three months after
receiving the report, submit to Parliament the Commissioner's
opinion on the report.”
1235
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-22, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 9 on page
38 with the following:
“72. (1) This Act and the regulations made thereunder shall
cease to have effect five years after the day on which section 98
comes into force.
(2) Within four years after the day on which section 98
comes into force, this Act and the regulations made thereunder
shall stand referred to the committee of Parliament that may be
designated or established for that purpose. The committee shall,
within one year, undertake a comprehensive review of the Act, the
regulations and their administration and submit a report to
Parliament including any recommendations pertaining to the
continuation of, or changes to, the Act, the regulations or their
administration that the committee wishes to make.”
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.) moved:
That Motion No. 8 be amended by replacing all of the words after
the words “(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall
include” with the following: “a description of the management
guidelines and policies of the Centre for the protection of human
rights and freedoms”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment is
receivable.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
purpose of the amendment that was moved, which was then amended
by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is to
ensure that parliament has a good idea of the rules and policies
adopted by the centre so that it can better play its role as
guardian of human rights and freedoms.
1240
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If we were to vote
now, we would be voting on Motions Nos. 8 to 11 inclusive,
without the possibility of a new motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am perhaps mistaken but I thought we were debating only Motion
No. 8. If that is not the case, I wish to move amendments to
Motions Nos. 9 and 11 moved by the Liberal Party member. If the
question is not just on Motion No. 8, I wish to continue to avail
myself of my right to speak.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Yes, I think that is an
entirely understandable error. We are now debating Group No. 3.
It includes Motions Nos. 8 to 11 inclusive. If the hon. member
wishes to continue speaking, he has seven minutes and 48 seconds
left.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, we agree with the spirit of
Motions Nos. 9 and 11 moved by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, but
we wish to make a slight amendment so that it is not parliament
as a whole but the House of Commons which has authority over
such matters.
I therefore move:
That Motion No. 9, in
paragraph
In addition, I move:
That Motion No. 11, in
paragraph
I believe these amendments improve the bill by stipulating that
elected representatives, members of the House of Commons—we all
know the esteem in which the member for Sarnia—Lambton holds the
other House, and I am sure he will agree—oversee the process and
not people appointed to the Senate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendments moved by the
hon. member are in order.
1245
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the third grouping of
amendments to Bill C-22, in particular Motions Nos. 9 and 11.
I want to say first that I support the bill. We all know there
is a need that has been agreed upon both nationally and
internationally to combat money laundering. It is a global
phenomenon. Enabling and co-ordinating the efforts of different
law enforcement agencies through a centralized body such as would
be established by this bill certainly is not in question.
I should also say that the amendments I have proposed do alter
the bill. I would ask my friends opposite who have proposed a
subamendment to think about what my amendments in fact say
because I do not believe that we are saying anything differently.
I would ask them to consider the following points.
The reason I have proposed these amendments is that I have very
specific concerns about the lack of a role for parliament, in
particular the House of Commons, in the oversight of the centre
established pursuant to the bill, and the limited accountability
to parliament, in particular the House of Commons, on the part of
the Minister of Finance for the centre's practices. However that
certainly is not a criticism of the minister.
My amendments attempt to redress what I would characterize as an
undermining of what some would call backbenchers' rights by a
bill that allows for too little accounting of actions undertaken
in the name of Canadian citizens by the centre. My amendments do
not attempt to micromanage or second guess the daily activities
of the centre. They attempt to provide a role for members of
parliament to monitor the means used by the centre to fulfil its
mandate and also to enable members to scrutinize periodically the
effectiveness of the policy that underlies Bill C-22.
My first amendment modifies the reporting obligations of the
centre's director. As it now stands the director must submit an
annual report to the Minister of Finance on the centre's
operations for the preceding year. The minister would then table
the report to both houses of parliament within 30 days.
Merely tabling the report in parliament does not provide members
the opportunity to seriously consider the effectiveness of the
centre's activities. It does not enable them to question
officials from the centre. It does not permit members to monitor
the centre for potentially abusive practices. This is
particularly troubling to me, given that some of the witnesses
before the committee described the bill's breadth as excessive
and the powers reserved for it as potentially sweeping. Legal
experts testified that the danger of abuse of power is real and
that the safeguards they foresaw in the bill might not be
adequate to forestall such abuses.
My amendment proposes an additional step to the formal report
made under the current legislation to the Minister of Finance,
that it be reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee. I
understand the desire of my friends opposite to have the bill say
it is the House of Commons, but if we look at this, the amendment
in fact says that it be reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary
committee. It could be designated as a committee of the House of
Common. It is very rare that a committee of the Senate would
take upon itself such an activity. It could be referred to a
committee of parliament that has been established for that
purpose.
I would also point out to my friends opposite that the
traditional role is for the finance committee to carry out those
sorts of things.
In some respects I can understand the fear they have that the
Senate will come into this but our tradition shows that will not
happen.
1250
Requiring a committee to make a report of its own would
obligate, I would suggest to my friends opposite, members of
parliament to study the effectiveness of the centre. It also
would permit concerns to be addressed to the director of the
centre and his officials as well as raise any problems that may
not have been seen when the bill was created. That is not a very
radical idea. I am not in any way suggesting that members could
ask who they are investigating, how they are investigating or
anything of that nature. It would simply be about where the
money is going, how it is being spent and whether it is working.
I have also proposed changes that would add a sunset clause to
the provisions that would give effect to the bill limiting those
provisions to a period of five years, just like the Bank Act. To
quote from the proposed amendment, the sunset clause would
require a parliamentary committee to “undertake a comprehensive
review of the act, the regulations and their administration and
submit a report to parliament including any recommendations
pertaining to the continuation of, or changes to, the act, the
regulations or their administration that the committee wishes to
make”. This process already exists in the Bank Act. It would
have to be completed so that new re-enabling legislation could be
introduced to parliament. It is very simple. It would have to
be considered, voted and acted upon within five calendar years of
the time that this act is given royal assent.
Such a provision would allow members of this place to further
scrutinize all the aspects of the money laundering act. The
sunset provision would also allow changes to be made as new law
enforcement techniques are discovered and more important, as
different ways of money laundering emerge. There will certainly
be techniques and ways we cannot even foresee or imagine today
especially with the emergence of electronic technology. In
short, I would call it a guard against statutory rust-out. It is
a Ziebart provision, if I can call it that.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that this bill undermines
backbenchers' rights because we are creating it, giving it
regulatory powers, and there is a reporting provision. We know
this is not the only piece of legislation that has short-circuited
the rights of members in this place. Over the past number of
decades, we the backbenchers have witnessed a decline in means of
participation in and influence on the great public policy
debates. We have little ability to influence new legislation as
it is being drafted in the faraway reaches of this place. Nor do
we have a parliamentary committee structure that enables members
to adequately influence the course of action taken or even to
hold ministers to account.
It has become a common practice here to time allocate
legislation so that it does not get bogged down in the House.
While it is important to ensure against parliamentary gridlock,
not having adequate time to debate legislation in some ways
invalidates our roles as legislators.
These impediments do not only have implications for our jobs as
lawmakers or legislators. Most important, it dangerously weakens
the link between those who govern and those who are governed.
Important questions about the true nature of democracy arise. In
a parliamentary democracy like ours, we as well as our leaders
must be aware that the elected members of the House of Commons
are the repositories of democracy in this country. We must at all
times be aware of the fact that our obligations must remain to
our constituents, to national objectives and the ability for us
to ask the kinds of questions that are expected.
In recent times these obligations have become misplaced.
Increasingly as a body we are giving up our ability to question,
to debate and to propose changes to legislation. By having the
sunset clause we will bring that back to this place. The idea of
depositing a report with the minister is fine and that minister's
depositing it in this place is fine, but we need that other
connection for us. That is the ability to bring the person
responsible before a committee of parliament and allow us from
this place to ask those questions.
A committee report on the table here does not allow debate, does
not allow questions.
1255
I am simply saying that these amendments are not revolutionary.
They just allow for the centre and its operations to be subject
to the scrutiny of us in this place. The way it stands, that is
not the case. For the department to resist such an amendment is
not the correct thing to do. It enables us, the backbench
members and those who will come here in the future to have some
scrutiny of that operation.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-22, the money laundering act.
The report stage amendments have been very constructive and
helpful in addressing some of the issues I raised when speaking
to this legislation earlier. The legislation without these types
of constructive amendments would provide a carte blanche, a blank
cheque to the new agency which has the ability to effectively
pursue activities without any checks and balances and potentially
persecute innocent Canadians in the course of its activities.
It is in the interests of accountability and ensuring that the
rights of all Canadians are respected and protected against all
powerful institutions, particularly these new agencies, whether
it is the Revenue Canada agency or this new money laundering
agency. We need to ensure that we in the House are vigilant in
protecting the rights of each and every Canadian.
My greatest concern, and I raised this when speaking to this
legislation earlier, is that ultimately the money laundering
agency would have the power to refer information on questionable
cases to Revenue Canada. If that is done only in cases where
there are reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering is one
thing. However, if in a case where there may not be enough
evidence to suggest money laundering activities but some evidence
of tax evasion exists and the money laundering agency refers the
matter to the Revenue Canada agency, that is a very different
matter. We need to ensure that with the combination of these two
agencies we are not creating a turbocharged Revenue Canada agency
that has a greater level of power to pursue and persecute
Canadians.
My concern on the Revenue Canada agency as brought forth earlier
was that it has the capacity to become an IRS style agency,
Godzilla the tax collector. The new money laundering agency
could augment the powers of an unaccountable agency and make it
even more frightening to the average Canadian taxpayer.
The accountability and transparency that would result from the
amendments would go a long way to help address a fundamental flaw
with the original legislation. I would hope that members in the
House will support these amendments and will continue to monitor
the activities of these agencies on an ongoing basis.
We do not want to create a system of fear in Canada for the
average taxpaying citizen that at the other end of the tax
enforcement side we are actually creating a turbocharged Revenue
Canada agency. We do not want to tilt the balance against the
average Canadian taxpayer who in the past has had to deal with
Revenue Canada, now the new Revenue Canada agency, without a lot
of defences.
1300
Again, with the new money laundering agency, anything we can do
to ensure that its activities are held accountable by some means,
in this case by reporting and by some independent analysis and
parliamentary reporting and so on, that will all help take the
necessary steps in the right direction.
The Progressive Conservative Party would be supportive of the
direction of these amendments and hope that other members of
parliament would see these amendments as being constructive.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, when I made the amendment on
Motion No. 8 I did not realize we were speaking on all the
motions. With the indulgence of the House, I wonder if I could
speak to Motion No. 8, the motion by the member for Charlesbourg.
With some compromise on the government side, we were able to
accommodate his amendment which has been dealt with.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The parliamentary
secretary has already spoken to this group, I believe. We can
seek the consent of the House for you to proceed. Does the hon.
member have the unanimous consent of the House to speak at this
point?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Madam Speaker, the bill already requires
that the director of the anti-money laundering centre submit an
annual report to the minister and that the minister table a copy
of the report in each House of parliament. This is a
fundamentally important accountability measure in the bill.
In our view there was no need to add a provision that would
require the centre's annual report to be reviewed by a committee
of parliament. Parliamentary committees have the right to
conduct such a review as they see fit. The motion would merely
create a rigid procedure and timetable for parliamentary review
without doing anything to strengthen the accountability of the
centre.
With respect to Motion No. 9, we were prepared to accommodate
the member for Sarnia—Lambton with an amendment that would
strike out the words “and the operations of the centre”.
Unfortunately we cannot support the subamendment by the member
for Charlesbourg to replace the word “parliament” with “House
of Commons”. Unfortunately, we also cannot support the motion
by the member for Sarnia—Lambton because we cannot support the
subamendment.
With respect to Motion No. 10, the Privacy Act authorizes the
privacy commissioner to investigate the centre to ensure that the
confidentiality of personal information is being properly
protected. The proposed amendment would not therefore provide
any additional safeguards. For this reason, I do not support the
proposed amendments.
However, we do believe there is merit in having the director
report in some fashion on the very important matter of
confidentiality. That is why we accepted some revised language
to Motion No. 8 which would call for the centre to describe its
policies and practices as it relates to the privacy of
information of Canadians.
Finally, with respect to Motion No. 11, I believe that the bill
as currently drafted strikes the right balance by requiring that
within five years of coming into force a committee of parliament
review “the administration and operation of this act” and
report to parliament. Clause 72 also explicitly requires that
the committee's report to parliament include a statement of any
changes to the act or its administration that the committee
recommends.
The existing provision in the bill will ensure that parliament
will re-examine this legislation carefully within five years with
a view to considering possible changes to improve Canada's
anti-money laundering regime. This is appropriate given the
importance of this legislation.
I do not believe that anything would be gained by the amendment
proposed by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to the five year
review clause in this bill because the bill is already going to
be reviewed by parliament within five years. I also cannot
support the subamendment by the member for Charlesbourg to strike
out the word “parliament”.
1305
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, we continue with the saga of pulling the bill
together with amendments, subamendments, everything happening at
the last minute and negotiations happening even at 11 hours and
59 minutes.
I continue to feel a sense of distress over this bill. We all
want the bill to go through so I am begrudgingly recommending to
my colleagues that we support these motions. However, there has
been so much chewing gum, baling wire and paper clips put to this
bill at this particular point I do not have a lot of confidence
that we will not see a big problem in three or four years after
this bill comes into effect. I am very concerned about that.
I will speak to Group No. 3 specifically. I will also comment
on Motion No. 9 by my esteemed colleague from Sarnia, and I say
that in all seriousness. I take him to be a very serious and
competent gentleman. He has certainly put some very legitimate
concerns in front of the House and has a deep concern about this
bill. He is a very serious and worthy member of parliament but
the problem with his motion is the phrase “and the operations of
the centre” contained in that motion.
Why I prefaced my remarks yet again with this business of
negotiating at the last second is that if in the procedure the
government had seen fit to remove that or to propose an amendment
to move that, then my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois could
then have entered the motion that he has before the Chamber. The
point is that we have to deal with his motion and we could have
dealt with the motion against this wording and the operations of
the centre. It could have happened and we could have had a
clause in this bill that would have in its own small way gone to
strengthening the bill. Unfortunately that did not happen. As a
consequence, because the member's motion includes those six words
“and the operations of the centre”, I will have to recommend to
my colleagues that we turn down an otherwise worthy amendment.
With respect to the member for Charlesbourg, for whom I also
have a great deal of respect, I understand what he is trying to
do in terms of talking about parliament as opposed to the
government and the whole attitude that there is vis-à-vis the
Senate. The Canadian Alliance is certainly in favour of a total
revision of the Senate before we afford it perhaps the kind of
respect that a chamber like that should have. However, because
we want to get this bill through quickly and come up to speed, in
spite of the three year delay on the part of the government, I
would have to vote against revising the Senate for the very
simple reason that we will not have any constitutional change. We
will certainly not have this Prime Minister do anything about the
Senate. This would have to be included in the motion which we
will have to defeat. This is terribly confusing.
On Motion No. 11 the Canadian Alliance generally would be in
favour of sunset clauses. As a matter of fact, we have proposed
them for bills like Bill C-68 and other very contentious bills
that have no proven value. Just to parenthesize that particular
bill is completely off track. It is costing hundreds of millions
of dollars and going nowhere. There is no sunset clause. Under
normal circumstances our party would be in favour of a sunset
clause.
However, the fact that this bill, as written by the government,
does call for a review in five years, and the fact that money
laundering will not go away in the next five years, I do not
think this particular motion would be at all helpful.
1310
Those are the comments of the official opposition. I hope we
can get through this without more chewing gum and baling wire
because we are getting a little bit low. The confectionery is
getting concerned.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment to Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 8, as amended.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, could I verify something
with the Chair? In the first instance, we dealt with Motion No.
8. Are we still dealing with Motion No. 8?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): First, we adopted the
amendment to Motion No. 8. We are now voting on Motion No. 8 as
amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as
amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion No. 8, as amended, agreed to)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 8, as
amended, carried.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 9. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the amendment
lost.
(Amendment negatived)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is
on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No.
9 lost.
(Motion No. 9 negatived)
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 10
lost.
(Motion No. 10 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is on
the amendment to Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the amendment
lost.
(Amendment negatived)
1315
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is on
Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare Motion No. 11
lost.
(Motion No. 11 negatived)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe earlier in the debate on this important subject matter
there was a recorded division requested on Group No. 1. I think
you would find unanimous consent to deal with the matter at this
time.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon.
government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to
proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the
report stage of the bill.
[Translation]
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the nays have
it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion lost.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, if you would seek
unanimous consent, I believe the House would agree to proceed to
third reading of this bill.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order,
which is one of clarification. It seems to me that the request
for a recorded division was made yesterday.
Therefore, we should now be ringing the bells to proceed with the
vote, unless the whip would specifically ask for the vote to be
further deferred.
1320
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, if it would help the
House, particularly in addressing the issue raised by my
colleague from Elk Island, earlier I asked for the unanimous
consent of the House to dispose of the deferred vote that was
requested on Group No. 1. I want to assure the member that we
dealt with the matter in the best traditions of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. government
whip asked for consent and the Chair did not hear any
disagreement to the request, so we proceeded as if consent had
been given.
The hon. government whip has asked for consent to proceed
immediately to third reading. Does the House give unanimous
consent to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at the
third reading of Bill C-22.
I would like to thank members for their co-operation and their
indulgence. We have dealt with a number of amendments that were
presented just days ago, or in some cases hours, and I think we
have accommodated a number of the concerns of the members who
proposed amendments.
In fairness to Canadians who are watching this debate, the
substance of the bill is sound and the amendments will add
further clarity to the reporting mechanisms. The amendments will
certainly add value to the bill.
In my view it is important that the bill be sent to the Senate
and promulgated so that law enforcement agencies and financial
institutions can finalize the development of the regulations and
the guidelines that will set this initiative into motion as
quickly as possible. We know that money laundering will not go
away. What we are trying to do with this legislation is curtail
the growth and decrease the levels of activity that are prevalent
in Canada and internationally.
There have been extensive consultations, not only at committee,
but with a number of stakeholder groups. Bill C-22 provides a
statutory minimum 90 day pre-publication requirement for any
regulation proposed under the legislation and a minimum 30 day
notice period if further changes are to be made. This goes well
beyond what is provided in many federal statutes and reflects the
importance that the government attaches to public consultations
in this area.
1325
[Translation]
In the same vein, the House should know about the guidelines
that will be given the institutions and the people, who, in
order to meet the reporting requirements of this bill, must
establish the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect that
the transaction is related to the commission of a money
laundering offence.
[English]
As we explained at committee, the guidelines will be issued by
the proposed anti-money laundering agency to assist with that
determination.
Flexibility will be the key word in developing the guidelines
and regulations. The money launderers of this world are
constantly changing their modus operandi. They are constantly
moving into new areas of activity. Therefore, we need to have
some flexibility within the regulations and guidelines.
As an example, there will need to be some clear rules around the
professions. If an accountant or an auditor is doing a regular
attest audit and he or she comes across what might be a suspicious
transaction, the legislation does not put the burden on that
person to report it. That would create an unnecessary burden.
However, if that person becomes party to a financial transaction
which involves a suspicious activity or an amount of money
defined by regulation, that person is obliged to comply with the
legislation. In the normal conduct of professional activities
that would not be required. This will be spelled out in the
regulations.
Our other G-7 partners are devoting considerable resources and
energies to combatting money laundering activities. With this
law we will do the same.
At committee we heard very strong representations from lawyers
in terms of solicitor-client privilege. The bill specifically
calls for respecting solicitor-client privilege. However, we
cannot allow the opportunity for lawyers who might be involved in
transactions involving money laundering operations to be exempt
on the grounds of solicitor-client privilege. That aspect of
this law will be very similar to the law in other jurisdictions.
Bill C-22 targets the financial rewards of criminal activity by
creating a balanced and effective reporting regime. It protects
the integrity of our financial systems and enables Canada to meet
its international obligations while protecting individual
privacy. We will have an effective money laundering system in
place to ensure that Canada fulfils its responsibility both as
the founding member of the financial action task force on money
laundering and as a member of the G-8 to co-operate in the
international fight against money laundering.
[Translation]
Not only are we joining with other members of the financial
action task force on money laundering in order to make the
reporting of dubious operations mandatory, but our system of
reporting will now be equal to that of most of the
industrialized countries, including the other members of the G-7,
most European countries and many of our Commonwealth partners,
such as Australia and New Zealand.
[English]
Let us waste no time in passing this legislation. I urge all
hon. members to accord this bill speedy passage, as we have done
to date. Let us pass this legislation so that Canadians can be
protected from money laundering activities.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to take part in this
debate on the third reading of Bill C-22. I can see that all my
colleagues and the pages are eager to hear my remarks and are
deeply interested in this debate, which has a major impact on
Canadians and Quebecers.
First of all, I cannot help but deplore, once again, the fact
that the committee had to rush its examination of the bill.
1330
We heard the last witnesses on Wednesday night at 5 p.m. or 5.30
p.m., and we had to sit the next morning at 9 a.m. to begin the
clause by clause review of the bill. It is easy to understand
that, after hearing interesting evidence, very intelligent and
well documented evidence, members should have been given a
little time to weigh this evidence and come up with amendments.
Unfortunately, this was just before our two week recess. We had
some time to digest all of this, and we came up with amendments
that passed.
I hope this will serve us a lesson to ensure that, if we really
want to give witnesses who appeared the credit, I would say,
that they deserve, the least the hon. members could do is take
the time to assimilate and to re-read their testimonies. The
quality of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee
on Finance concerning Bill C-22 was particularly impressive.
I would be remiss if I did not tell members of the House that
the Bloc Quebecois has probably the most intelligent, balanced,
concrete and imaginative anti-crime agenda of all political
parties represented in the House. It is an anti-crime agenda that
does not fall into populism, into demagogy, and I think we can
see the result with Bill C-22.
I would remind hon. members that the 1997 election platform of
the Bloc Quebecois—I know this is almost bedtime reading to you,
Madam Speaker—provided for and clearly asked for such a measure
to fight money laundering.
Indeed, as early as 1997, even before the federal government
introduced Bill C-22 and its doomed predecessor, Bill C-81, the
Bloc Quebecois was already working on this issue, holding
numerous intensive meetings with different crime fighting
agencies. This is only one example. We could give others.
For instance, I introduced a bill to take $1,000 bills out of
circulation. The federal government decided to listen to the
Bloc Quebecois and to take them out of circulation to fight
money laundering.
We spent a full opposition day trying to get all the
parliamentarians in this House to agree to have the Standing
Committee on Justice look into the problem of organized crime in
Canada. It is a third victory for the Bloc Quebecois.
These three victories are quite impressive. I would be remiss—and
I am pretty sure that all the members would hold it against me—if
I overlooked the relentless campaign against organized crime
that the member for Bagot is engaged in, despite all the risks
involved, particularly in his region where farmers live in fear,
terrorized by criminal groups who grow marijuana in their corn
fields and other fields. It deserves the support of all members
of the House.
Those were four specific actions taken by the Bloc, and we
claimed victory on three of them.
Of course, when we hear the clever and convincing arguments
brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, it is hard to imagine
that the House would decide not to follow the lead of the Bloc
on this matter.
Coming back to Bill C-22 per se, and I repeat that it was an
original idea of the Bloc, it is important to mention that it is
indeed an obligation, as the parliamentary secretary for the
minister of Finance said, an international obligation for Canada
to fight this worldwide phenomenon known as money laundering.
Canada meets its obligations in this regard.
On the whole, this is a good bill. The amendments proposed,
again, by the Bloc Quebecois bring some pretty major
improvements to the bill. I see a number of people agreeing with
that. The regulative jurisdiction is one of the main problems of
this bill.
It was extremely broad, and one can understand the logic of all
that.
1335
The centre that will be created under this bill will have to be
flexible. Indeed, considering the ever changing new technology,
it will have to be able to adjust very quickly. This is why the
regulatory power is very broad.
We wanted to ensure that not only would the Access to
Information Act and the Privacy Act apply, but also that
parliamentarians would be properly informed about the centre's
operations.
This is why I moved Motion No. 8, which was carried with an
amendment, but which still ensures that the policies and
benchmarks set by the centre are known by members of the House,
who are ultimately accountable to the public.
This bill deals, among other things, with the issue of privacy.
Given today's technology, that issue can raise some concerns and
this is understandable. It is therefore important to give
elected members of the House, who are the only ones accountable
to the public, at least an opportunity to understand and the
authority to ask what is going on in a centre that could
potentially have excessive powers.
I congratulate the House, and particularly the Bloc Quebecois,
which promoted the idea of fighting money laundering and of
reporting suspicious transactions over $10,000.
This great victory for the Bloc Quebecois is made even sweeter
by the fact that several of our amendments were accepted by the
House, and for good reason.
Again, the House showed great wisdom in supporting the
amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I congratulate the
House, and particularly the Bloc Quebecois for its excellent
work in the fight against crime.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, this is possibly the strangest bill I have ever
had anything to do with in the eight years I have had the
privilege of serving the people of Kootenay—Columbia.
As the solicitor general critic I am fully aware of the
consequences of the bill. It will be used basically as a highly
sophisticated sieve to be able to look at countless billions of
dollars of transactions literally on a daily basis. The bill is
a highly sophisticated response to a highly sophisticated
problem.
In one presentation during the course of our committee work the
law enforcement people showed us a graph with three different
pictures. When we first looked at it, it appeared as though
there was a yellow sun approximately 30 inches in diameter and
there were some notations around its perimeter.
When we looked very closely at it, we realized they were all
simply lines. It was much like taking the wrapping off a golf
ball and looking at how the elastic band was wound on it. Another
section showed a bit closer that indeed they were lines, but they
were so complex that it was difficult to perceive any kind of
pattern.
A smaller section was blown up to the same size as the original
sun and we could see the number of transactions by organized
crime they had traced in this one instance to take a look at the
money coming in from illegal activities that are dragging down
society such as drugs, prostitution and so on. Those activities
were detailed in the study by this law enforcement organization.
Of everything I saw, the graph was the most graphic illustration
of what we are discussing today.
We now have the ability because of the power of computers to
enact all sorts of transactions and exceptionally sophisticated
transactions on the part of organized crime.
1340
I have been exceptionally critical, and I think rightfully so,
of the solicitor general, the finance minister, the Prime
Minister and the government for the fact that they have strangled
the ability of law enforcement agencies in Canada to come even
close to the level of sophistication of which even the most
rudimentary organized crime units are capable.
It is not only organized crime. We are also talking about the
laundering of money, much of which ends up sticking to the
fingers of people involved in terrorism. The new immigrants to
Canada, the people who come here to help us build our great
nation, the people who see the opportunity and seize it, are most
disadvantaged by the fact that the Liberal government
consistently strangles the ability of law enforcement to get to
the bottom of terrible terrorist organizations that not only
plague the world but indeed individuals in Canada.
The speed by which the legislation is going through the House
today and over the last couple of days is well warranted. It is
something we desperately need to do, but we put that against the
fact that over the last three years the government has dillied
and dallied. It has dragged its feet and has not got around to
giving us the necessary legislation. In just a second I will
describe the process that led up to the point where the
government finally brought the legislation to the House of
Commons.
Unfortunately the legislation has been subjected to crass
opportunism on the part of the Liberal government which sees this
Chamber and the work of the people here as being worthy of
nothing more than being treated as though it were a rubber stamp,
as though we do not have a function in the process.
I was elected in my constituency not just to represent the
people there. Along with the other 300 members in the House of
Commons, we were collectively elected to come here to work on
behalf of the people of Canada. I find it absolutely appalling
that the government continuously treats the opposition and this
Chamber as though it was a matter of yet another rubber stamp.
I can give an example. I am deeply concerned that the bill will
be so egregiously flawed that we will run into the problems in
two, three or four years after the bill is enacted and the centre
gets going. We will find all sorts of flaws because of the
terribly bad process it has gone through.
We have spoken during report stage about the number of things
that were going on in the background. First, we ended up with
negotiations between all parties on a work schedule. The
government will say that the work schedule for the committee was
on the basis that we would be hearing witnesses up to a
particular point. The hearing of witnesses was to close at 5.30
p.m. one day and at 9 a.m. the next day we would start clause by
clause consideration.
For those who are not familiar with how bills go through the
House of Commons, clause by clause is exactly that. Every law is
made up of any number of clauses to a bill. The number of
clauses can be as few as two or three. In most instances there
are 100 or more clauses to a bill. Those describe in great
detail so that judges, law enforcement officials and interested
Canadians can see what the intent was of the people in this
Chamber with respect to any kind of legislation.
When we go through clause by clause on any bill there is the
government side and, depending on how contentious the bill may
be, there is the opposition that will then debate each word, each
parse, each phrase and each piece of punctuation to make sure
that it is indeed the way the government wants it. Of course at
the end of the day the government will prevail.
That is the parliamentary process.
1345
What happened in this instance was we had a number of very
interesting witnesses who gave all of us pause for concern. They
made us stop and realize that we have to make sure that our
Canadian legislation reflects the values within the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A witness, a law enforcement official from the U.K., gave us
illustrations. I asked him some questions about his
illustrations on what was being done in the U.K. We very clearly
discovered that if we are going to have the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, every piece of legislation has to match it.
Therefore the bill was working around the restrictions of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that many of our
ancestors or relatives of our ancestors currently living in the
U.K. do not have to work around. We realize in every jurisdiction
in all of the G-7 countries and any of the signatories to any of
the agreements with respect to money laundering that there will
be different platforms that legislation will be working from.
We listened to different professional agencies. We listened to
businesses that were going to be affected by the legislation. We
had some very thoughtful presentations from most of the
presenters. One or two of the presenters we collectively found
were a bit over the top but that is fine. That is their right and
their privilege to come before us in committee.
Against the 2,000 or 3,000 lawyers the government has in the
justice department, the solicitor general's department, the
finance department, every government department, against the
2,000 lawyers the government has on its side who could be taking
apart this testimony, the official opposition has one lawyer.
Count him. There is one lawyer who is basically responsible for
three different ministries, that is 2,000 to one in terms of
strength.
I acknowledge that the work schedule was agreed to by all
parties, my party included, but when we came to the conclusion of
this process it was very evident that the work schedule was no
longer workable. That we were going to be hearing witnesses at
5.30 p.m. on Wednesday and at nine o'clock in the morning on
Thursday we were supposed to be prepared to do clause by clause
study was clearly and specifically unworkable. I drew that to the
attention of the parliamentary secretary.
In good faith I went to that committee session. My colleague
from Charlesbourg went to that meeting. We both basically said
that we needed more time. The member from Sarnia who was at the
meeting actually put forward a motion that we needed to have time
over the two week parliamentary break when members are at home
working with their constituents. That period of time would give
our lawyer an opportunity to take a look at the testimony and to
parse it to see how it related to all of the clauses.
The government saw fit to vote down the motion put forward by
the member from Sarnia over the objections of three members of
the opposition. Therefore we did not take part in the clause by
clause study. The reason I did not take part in the clause by
clause study was that quite candidly I was not prepared. I have
not received counsel. This is an exceptionally complex bill. I
say again it is going to screen countless billions and billions
of currency in and out of Canada. I wanted to be prepared. There
was no way I could be prepared.
Let us fast forward to bringing this matter to the Chamber
yesterday. What a disgraceful display that was. This was brought
into the Chamber yesterday while we were still in the process of
discussions. As a matter of fact I recall the clerk at the table
stood to introduce Group No. 1 and the Speaker at the time began
to read the motions. We were all running back to our seats
halfway through negotiations as to how we were going to be
handling the various amendments.
We got into the process and then the Liberals ended up
discussing things with the Bloc Quebecois, which is entirely
their privilege. I do not think much of that myself but I do
think very much of the fact that I represent Her Majesty's
Official Opposition.
We were left out of any discussions of that type. All of a
sudden the government was presenting motions to the Chair which
the Chair could not receive.
1350
I say for the third or fourth time this bill is basically
responsible for acting like a highly sophisticated sieve
involving countless billions of dollars on a daily basis and we
are running around giving motions from the Government of Canada
that the Chair cannot receive. It is no wonder I asked that the
debate be adjourned. It was only logical. It gave the
government an opportunity to get a breather.
What a disgraceful display for a government of a G-7 nation to
come forward with this kind of vital legislation and to do it in
such a slipshod way. It has been the height of folly. It has
been absolutely frustrating to try to perform my duties on behalf
of Her Majesty's Official Opposition when we have seen this type
of chewing gum and baling wire.
As I pointed out on Group No. 3 that was just passed, again the
government member from Sarnia presented a motion to amend the
bill as written. That is what can happen at report stage, just
so the people who are not familiar with the parliamentary process
understand. That motion actually had some merit. I think it
would have strengthened the bill not in a large way but certainly
in a small way, and for something as sophisticated as this bill
every little small part helps.
What happened? The member included a phrase that unfortunately
was unworkable. The phrase would have caused a situation where
the centre that will be doing the work would have to reveal far
too much detail in public, and I understand that. My
understanding in conversation with the member from Sarnia is that
there had been agreement that he would agree to the removal of
that phrase.
My colleague from Charlesbourg for his own very good reasons
brought forward an amendment. He wanted to remove the word
“government” and insert the word “parliament” thereby
freezing the Senate out of the ability of being involved in the
five year review of this. This is important.
Had the government been on the ball, and I drew it to the
attention of certain government members at the time, and had it
inserted the amendment to the motion by the member from Sarnia
and then my colleague had put his subamendment, we could have had
that improvement to the legislation in the bill. This just
happened within the last hour.
Instead the government was remiss and did not do that. As a
consequence, as we voted down the amendment by the member for
Charlesbourg, we closed off the ability to make the necessary
amendment for that improvement to the bill. I just despair for
this process.
I have not been involved in a lot of the legislation that has
gone through the House in terms of shepherding it through the
House for Her Majesty's Official Opposition. I have not been as
involved in the detail. Heaven forbid that the the process on
every piece of legislation is as messed up as the process that
was involved in this piece of legislation has been.
I recognize we are reaching the time when the Speaker will tell
us it is time for members' statements. I will want to complete my
speech following question period. I will conclude this portion
without talking about the substance of the bill, which I will
happily do following question period.
I state again that I have the greatest feeling of despair for
this piece of legislation because of the fatally flawed process
through which it has rumbled through this Chamber.
This is where the Senate does come in. God bless their souls
over there. They do have the ability to take a look at this
legislation. Hopefully they will not go through as badly flawed
a process.
1355
The government now wants to get this bill through like greased
lightning and wants to get this bill enacted finally after three
years. I would hope that if the Senate comes forward with
meaningful amendments the government will not take those as
hostile and that we will not be involved in another seriously
flawed process in the event that the bill ends up coming back
from the Senate.
The Speaker: My colleague, of course you are absolutely
correct that you still have close to 22 minutes. I am sure it
will fit in with your plan to give us the second half of your
talk today.
As it is almost two o'clock, we will go to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADA BOOK DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians across the country celebrated Canada Book Day
on April 27. To mark this event I had the pleasure of hosting my
annual Canada Book Day luncheon on April 19 in my riding.
Attendees included renowned Canadian and local authors
Christopher Moore, chairman of the Writers' Union of Canada, and
Greg Gatenby, the founder of the Harbourfront Reading Series.
Also in attendance were publisher Kim McArthur and Sheryl McKean
of the Canadian Booksellers Association. A special guest
appearance was made by Professor Stephen Leacock, also known as
Neil Ross, while on his whirlwind tour to cheer up Canada and
promote literacy.
Founded in 1976 the Writers' Trust of Canada has endeavoured to
advance and nurture Canadian writers and Canadian literature.
This national non-profit organization has, with Canada Book Day
2000, launched new programs through schools and libraries and a
Canada Book Day coupon program.
This day also provides us with the opportunity to recognize the
contribution writers make to the cultural richness of Canada and
to pass on our previously loved books so that others may benefit.
* * *
LAKE DAUPHIN FISHERY
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring the attention of the House to
a very important matter in my riding. Over the past few months
the health of the Lake Dauphin fishery has been questioned.
Fishing practices and conservation are the issues.
The matter has taken on an urgent sense this spring as some
aboriginals have been using gill nets to catch fish during their
river spawning runs. This has upset the people of the parkland
who have worked hard to stock the lake to ensure it thrives for
generations to come.
It should be noted that many aboriginals and first nations
leaders do not condone this reckless act toward this precious
resource.
The minister responsible for fisheries has a duty to explain to
the people in my riding of Dauphin—Swan River how this issue
will be resolved.
Does conservation of a natural resource take precedence over an
aboriginal fishing right? What does the word sustenance mean
when quoting these rights? What are the acceptable methods of
carrying out sustenance activities?
* * *
[Translation]
DANIEL RICHER
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week,
the 20 best town criers in the world were in Bermuda to compete
in the tournament held by the Ancient and Honourable Guild of
Town Criers.
It is with much pride that I pay tribute today to Daniel Richer
dit Laflèche, a resident of Aylmer, who won the title of best
town crier in the world, thus becoming the first francophone to
achieve this prestigious international distinction.
Mr. Richer won the praise of members of the jury and fellow
challengers during his last cry, a ringing tribute to unity and
rapprochement at the beginning of the third millennium. A
wonderful ambassador for his region, his province and his
country, the senior crier for Quebec and Ontario, Daniel Richer
represents us proudly wherever his voice takes him.
Congratulations to his wife Sylvie, who won the title of most
elegant escort at the same competition, as well as their two
sons, because of whom the Richer family were able—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Paul's.
* * *
[English]
LOUIS APPLEBAUM
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
April 20, 2000 Canada lost an important pillar of its culture.
Louis Applebaum, noted music composer, conductor, arts
administrator and champion of the arts, passed away at the age of
82 after a long illness.
Most of us will remember Louis Applebaum's name for his
participation as chairman of the Applebaum-Hébert commission, a
committee of 18 eminent Canadians who undertook to review
cultural policies for Canada.
Mr. Applebaum's accomplishments are legendary. He began his
career in 1941 with the National Film Board where he served as
music director.
After composing for many feature films in Hollywood and New York,
he became the first music director of the Stratford Festival.
Likewise, he was part of the planning group that led to the
founding of the National Arts Centre Orchestra and the Department
of Music at the University of Ottawa. He was also a founder of
the Canadian League of Composers, executive director of the
Ontario Arts Council and president of the SOCAN from 1994 until
his death.
1400
The recipient of a Gemini, a Juno, the Diplome d'honneur, the
Order of Canada and several honorary degrees, Mr. Applebaum will
remembered for the many things—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice appears to be
ending up with egg on her face after a recent announcement that
her useless gun registry is doing something about reducing
firearms crime in Canada.
A bit of an investigation revealed that she has not even
bothered to put into force the part of Bill C-68 that requires
guns entering the country to be registered. If the minister
believes the registry is so important, why was the entire
shipment of World War II army rifles, which she says was a threat
to public safety, knowingly waved through Canada customs without
even being registered?
The RCMP advised me that Canada customs does not even tell the
registrar about the guns coming across the border. The
minister's own research shows that between 200,000 and 300,000
firearms enter Canada illegally each year but are never
registered because the minister has not put into force
legislation passed in 1995.
Everyone should be wondering why the minister waited for a
so-called criminal to register a 1,000 World War II rifles
destined to collectors if registration is so important for public
safety.
The minister cannot change this mountain into a molehill. This
is a billion dollar boondoggle.
* * *
[Translation]
JOE BEELEN
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again, I am proud to pay tribute to Joe Beelen, a resident of
Dollard-des-Ormeaux, who took part in a one month volunteer
assignment in San Petro Sula in Honduras for the Canadian
Executive Service Organization, CESO.
Mr. Beelen is representative of CESO's highly qualified
volunteers and has several missions to his credit.
His last assignment was to a company manufacturing and
distributing pharmaceutical products.
He was of great assistance to the company, helping improve
product quality, revising and modifying a number of
formulations, and then implementing continuous product updating
methods.
He recommended changes to the existing facilities and examined
the plans for the proposed new facilities. In addition, he
provided advice on administrative aspects of the company.
I congratulate Mr. Beelen and thank him for his devotion. He
proudly represents CESO's motto, which is “Sharing a lifetime of
experience”.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the past 18 years, over 6,000 animals have been killed by trains,
cars and trucks in Jasper, Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National
Parks. The victims include grizzly bears, a species classified
as vulnerable in Canada, mountain lions, bighorn sheep and
wolves. The explanation is that animals are attracted by grain
spilled by trains. Then we have bighorn sheep and mountain lions
taking refuge inside the Brulé Tunnel near Jasper.
There are solutions to stopping this wildlife carnage in the
national parks. Canadian National Railways could repair leaking
hopper cars, clean up spilled grain from the railroads and build
fences near the Brulé Tunnel.
Wildlife must be safe and protected when moving in national
parks and CN Railways has a responsibility to discharge in
exchange for the privilege of using railway tracks through the
pristine wilderness of our national parks.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's ill-fated trip to the Middle
East on how to embarrass us and weaken Canada's reputation made
headlines at home and abroad.
The Liberal member for Wentworth—Burlington has his own take on
it. He said that the Prime Minister's Middle East gaffes were
actually part of an extremely sophisticated policy testing
strategy. He said “I believe the Prime Minister's visit and the
remarks he made were a set-up. He was working from a prepared
script on behalf of the parties to the peace process”.
The member also said that in March 1999 the Prime Minister and
the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, struck some sort of secret
agreement during their private discuss in Ottawa. He said “The
truth of this will emerge after the peace process is finished”.
When will the Prime Minister tell Canadians the truth about the
secret plan?
* * *
[Translation]
PREVENTION OF MENTAL ILLNESS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
first week of May is Mental Health Week, devoted to the
prevention of mental illness.
Everyone, regardless of age, income, sex, origin or occupation,
must feel concerned by mental health promotion within the
community.
1405
The World Health Organization defines mental health as the
ability to feel, think and act in such a way as to enhance our
capacity to live life to the fullest and to cope with
challenges. Mental health relates to positive emotional and
spiritual well-being and respects the importance of culture,
equity, social justice, personal interaction and human dignity.
As an illustration of the significance of mental health, by 2020
it is predicted that depression will rank second among the
illnesses representing the heaviest economic burden in Canada.
One thing is certain: mental health depends on solid community
and family support networks. Each and every one of us, and all
those we represent, are responsible for the quality and
viability of these networks.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I would like to say that the Premier of Nunavut, Paul
Okalik, is pleased to be back in Ottawa for a few days on
government business.
As hon. members know, the Government of Nunavut celebrated its
first year anniversary on April 1, 2000. One year ago the world
watched as this historic event changed the face of Canada.
In these last 12 months the Government of Nunavut has
demonstrated stability and strong leadership in establishing the
policies, programs and partnerships to benefit the lives of
Nunavut residents.
Despite the excitement of a new government, there are many
challenges facing both the Government of Nunavut and the federal
government toward improving the quality of life of Nunavummiut.
The federal and the territorial governments must work hard to
deal with such significant issues as lack of housing,
unemployment and education.
I am very happy to see Premier Okalik in Ottawa meeting with
federal government officials to dialogue on the opportunities and
challenges facing his territory.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today I had the privilege to join with the National
Union of Public and General Employees Women's Committee in their
call upon the federal government to invest in women's health care
initiatives, in particular, funding a Women's health research
institute.
In its recent announcements to provide $60 million this year for
the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and $500 million next
year, the government ignored the majority of users of the system
and 52% of Canada's population by not earmarking a single dollar
for women's health research.
Lost in the rhetoric and television ads has been the real health
concerns of women. Access to timely, quality health care for
women is at an all time low while the provincial and federal
governments play politics.
The money is there. The time to act is now to improve women's
health care, and Canadian women demand it.
* * *
BRADLEY GASKIN MARSHALL CRITICAL CARE FUND
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
celebrate their 100th anniversary, Bradley Gaskin Marshall
Insurance Brokers Ltd. donated $35,525 to the Cambridge Memorial
Hospital Foundation. This represents $1 for every day BGM has
been in business in Cambridge.
The Bradley Gaskin Marshall Critical Care Fund will support the
emergency and intensive care units of our hospital.
Cambridge corporations and individuals have long been known for
their compassion and giving. BGM managing partner, Mr. Fred
Gaskin, has been generous with his time by providing astute
insight and a broad perspective as a member of my Community
Advisory Council since 1997.
I congratulate BGM on its centenary and I encourage others in
Cambridge to adopt the “dollar a day” concept.
* * *
[Translation]
OPPOSITION PARTIES
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition parties are total cowards.
Before Easter, they did everything they could to undermine the
credibility of the Prime Minister in the Middle East. This
week, now that he is back, there is barely a squeak out of them.
The Bloc Quebecois feigned concern for Canada's reputation. Yet
now that they have the Prime Minister right in front of them,
how many questions have there been about his mission? Zero,
nada, nil. What a fine example of courage.
[English]
With all their attacks while the Prime Minister was in the
Middle East, how strange it is that the opposition has not even
bothered to ask a single question directly to him about his trip.
For example, members opposite, who were so eager to criticize the
Prime Minister, were not so eager this week when he was sitting
10 feet across from them.
What does this show? It shows that when it comes down to it,
the opposition is all talk and no action.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
QUEBEC TAX SYSTEM
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Finance said that if taxes were higher
in Quebec it was because a sovereignist government was in power.
Perhaps the minister, the pretender to the Liberal throne, has
forgotten that the federalists, his Liberal cousins, were the
ones to have taxed Quebecers so heavily, while Bernard Landry is
lowering taxes.
Perhaps too, taxes are so high in Toronto because the mayor
there is a sovereignist?
Or perhaps taxes are higher in Quebec than in Ontario because of
the $2 billion shortfall in constructive spending by his
government? Or because of the refusal to compensate Quebec in
the amount of $2 billion for the harmonization of the GST with
the QST? Or the cuts to transfers, a very large portion of which
fell to Quebec? Or because the Quebec tax system is much more
generous than anywhere else in Canada to the disadvantaged,
students, seniors and low income families.
Or perhaps it is because the Minister of Finance is a Liberal, a
federalist and rich that the level of taxation by his government
requires certain shipowners, including himself, to sail under
foreign flag in order to avoid paying tax in Canada?
* * *
CIDRERIE MICHEL JODOIN
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1901, the
patriarch Jean-Baptiste Jodoin bought 100 apple trees at the
Sunday auction on the steps of the church in Rougemont. From
very modest beginnings, this first orchard blossomed over the
generations into a thriving business.
In Rougemont, the apple capital, the Jodoin family is known for
the abundance and excellence of its apple crop. The art of
cider making is passed on from father to son.
Michel Jodoin, the current head of the business, yesterday
inaugurated the first micro distillery in Canada. Eleven years
of hard work, red tape and research went into producing his very
first litres of Quebec style Calvados.
Congratulations to Cidrerie Michel Jodoin, which I encourage you
to visit this summer as you tour Rougemont in the riding of
Shefford.
* * *
FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN MANITOBA
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian government has once again invested in the future of our
young people.
On April 27, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps,
and Manitoba's education minister, Drew Caldwell, reached an
agreement in principle to implement special investment measures—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. I want to know what the hon.
member is saying.
[Translation]
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has once
again invested in the future of our young people. On April 27,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps, and Manitoba's
education minister—
[English]
The Speaker: That is what I thought. We will hear from
the hon. member tomorrow.
The hon. member for Halifax West.
* * *
RESERVE FORCE UNIFORM DAY
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday throughout our land Canada's reserve force personnel
wore their uniforms with pride as part of Reserve Force Uniform
Day.
Reservists have served Canada for over a century and serve on
peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. On behalf of the federal
New Democratic Party, it is my honour to commend all reservists
on their commitment to their community and country.
In my riding of Halifax West, reservists played an essential
role in the recovery of Swissair Flight 111. Elsewhere,
reservists have played an invaluable service throughout Canada,
including during the Manitoba flood, the 1998 ice storms,
avalanches and forest fires.
I urge all Canadians to take time to say thank you to the
reservists so committed to our country. I also urge the Liberal
government to pass legislation offering job protection to
Canada's reserve force soldiers called upon to serve their
country. It is appalling that the government refuses to take
simple measures to ensure reservists' jobs would be protected
while they are defending the interests of our country.
I also call upon the government not to reduce or eliminate these
most valuable components of the military who serve their
communities and their country so well, but rather to resource and
support them fully for the work they do.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, as everyone
in the House knows, the Minister of National Defence steadfastly
refuses to return memorial stained glass windows to the old St.
George's Church in Cornwallis because the church is no longer
consecrated.
Despite the fact that the church has now been transformed into a
new naval museum, the minister continues to ignore the pleas of
our veterans who themselves struggled and bought these windows to
commemorate the naval personnel who lost their lives during the
Battle of the Atlantic.
On May 21 the Royal Canadian Naval Association meets in
Cornwallis. Many of these individuals made donations for these
memorial windows. When will the minister return these windows to
their rightful place?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the HRDC minister said that
if I had been at committee I would have seen that Deloitte &
Touche had endorsed her six point plan. In fact, the minutes of
the committee do not bear that out. They said no such thing. In
fact, their representative, Mr. Potts, said that his firm never
even saw the final draft. He said “We did not perform any
review or analysis of that action plan”.
Why does the minister not just step aside and take up another
profession that she seems to be getting so good at, something
like writing fiction? How about it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us go through this again. From the
point of view of the department, making sure that we had an
effective action plan to implement was a priority. We drafted a
strategy. We contracted with Deloitte & Touche and asked them
for their advice. They provided it.
We implemented their recommendation. We provided it to the
auditor general. I would remind the hon. member that he said
“The action plan prepared by the department represents an
exceptional response, I believe”.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on February 2 Deloitte & Touche came
out with that scathing report. The minister says that she in
fact implemented those plans. That is not true. There were no
substantive changes between February 2—
The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure that members
could use other terms. I would prefer that we would stay away
from that kind of statement for today.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would beg that we would
stay away from that kind of action, not just that kind of
statement.
She thought that Deloitte & Touche's incredible credibility
across this country might just rub off on her. That was a vain
hope. It did not. Her claims were not backed up by fact.
Deloitte & Touche never even saw the final report. She knows
that there was no substantive difference.
Are any of this minister's words to be believed?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify again that we implemented
the recommendations of Deloitte & Touche.
From the point of view of the department, we have a plan that
has been encouraged to be implemented by the auditor general and
that is being done. On this side of the House we are prepared to
take action. On that side of the House they want to stay stuck
in the past.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): No, Mr. Speaker, we would like to move on to the
future.
With that realization, and the substantive changes maybe that
Deloitte & Touche talked about, this minister did not implement
them and she knows it. Mr. Potts basically said that very thing,
that they never even saw the final review. She did not seem to
care about it because four days later, on February 6, she
pretended that everything was going to be just fabulous in that
department. She knew that plan had no credibility and she knew
that it would fail.
Why has she told the House and Canadians that she took that
advice when she knows perfectly well she did not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Deloitte & Touche said that individuals
need to understand their responsibilities and expected
timeframes. What did we do? Our final plan identifies senior
managers as accountable for specific tasks and clearly states
commitments and deadlines.
Deloitte & Touche said that the draft plan did not assign
overall leadership and responsibility for implementing the plan,
so we put in place a senior management team to lead the
implementation. Deloitte & Touche recommended that we strengthen
our information systems. In the final plan we will implement
three new information systems, including a new financial tracking
system.
We implemented the recommendations.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the minister stated in the House that she
established a grants and contributions team on the advice of
Deloitte & Touche contained in its report of February 2. She
said the same thing today.
The program integrity audit released three months ago says that
the grants and contributions performance tracking group was
launched in September 1999. Why did the minister give the
impression that she had taken the advice of Deloitte & Touche
when in fact she had not taken any new action at all?
1420
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the context of the work of my
department in this undertaking it is absolutely clear that it has
been made a priority of the senior management team.
The men and women of the Department of Human Resources
Development are implementing this plan on a daily basis, working
day and night to ensure that the contributions they make in the
communities are good ones, to ensure that our accountability back
to the taxpayer is clear.
If the hon. member opposite has recommendations to make, why
have I received none to date?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the first recommendation was that the minister resign.
The minister also said yesterday that she put in place a
departmental directive on the issuance of payments following
Deloitte & Touche's concern that grants may have been paid
inappropriately. That was in their February 2 report. But we
have a copy of that departmental directive and it is dated
January 20, three months ago.
Why is the minister giving the impression to the House that she
incorporated the advice of Deloitte & Touche in her six point
plan when she so clearly has not taken any new action? Why is
she telling people that she has taken action?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take the time to
visit some of the human resources development offices across this
country to see the work that is being done on site, he would see
that we have implemented changes. He would see that the men and
women who are part of this very important department are working
very hard to represent the interests of the Canadian public.
What we see on that side of the House is more misinformation.
Clearly they are not interested at all—
The Speaker: I would ask that we stay away from those
words. I am sure we could use others.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an RCMP officer
reported that there was a total lack of co-operation between the
RCMP and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and he even said
that the RCMP had its hands tied regarding CINAR.
How can the government explain the statements made by the
Minister of National Revenue, who boasts about the great
co-operation between his department and the RCMP?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that there
is excellent co-operation between the RCMP and this department.
There are certain regulations that must be followed and they are
being followed. There is excellent co-operation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we must have misunderstood the RCMP officer, who said yesterday
that his hands were tied, that there was a total lack of
co-operation and that they had reached an impasse. I imagine it
is the minister who has the hot potato in his hands.
How does the minister explain that this government, which asked
the Swiss government to violate the financial discretion rule in
the Airbus case, is now doing its utmost to prevent any light
being shed on CINAR, thus allowing, perhaps, some key players to
get away with what they did? Perhaps these people are also
friends of the Liberal Party.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not preventing anything
from taking place. What this government and every government
does is let the RCMP do its job. There are laws and regulations
in this country concerning what information can or cannot be
released.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, RCMP officer Pierre-Yves Carrier said that matters
were at a complete impasse in the investigation into the CINAR
affair and that he would be able to complete only two-thirds of
his investigation because of the Department of National
Revenue's lack of co-operation.
Does the minister realize that because of the impasse created by
the department's lack of co-operation, the RCMP, as we heard
yesterday from officer Pierre-Yves Carrier, may miss important
players in its investigation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can say very clearly that there
is full co-operation between the RCMP and the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
1425
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, there is full
co-operation. I am certain that Bloc Quebecois members will
understand—and if they need proof, they can perhaps ask the
member for Chambly, who certainly understands that it is
important to maintain confidentiality in revenue files—that there
are Canadian laws in place that are still respected by the
agency and the RCMP.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
if Bloc Quebecois members had not asked questions about CINAR in
the House, if journalists had not probed deeper, if an RCMP
officer had not raised the alarm on television, there is a good
chance that none of this would have come to light and that,
consequently, nothing would have been done to put a stop to
these dubious practices. Ms. Charest would probably still be
hosting benefit dinners for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Who does the government want to protect? What important players
may be missed because of the lack of co-operation of the
Department of National Revenue? More friends of the Liberal
Party?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these gratuitous accusations are
completely unjustified. The Bloc Quebecois member opposite,
like most Canadians I am sure, knows that these accusations are
false.
The Government of Canada and the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency are co-operating fully with the RCMP but, at the same
time, of course, we are respecting the law as passed by this
House and this parliament.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Bill 11 is now in
its final form in Alberta. The government is faced with a bill
that has not been amended in the way that the federal Minister of
Health requested. Many would say that Premier Klein has
sentenced medicare to death. The only power in the country that
can commute that sentence is the federal government acting
decisively to make sure that bill 11 is not implemented.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what does the federal government
intend to do to make sure that medicare does not die on its
watch?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will uphold and enforce the Canada Health Act. We
have been proud of our creation of medicare and we will ensure
that it continues. We will oppose the concept of two tier
medicine which is being promoted, it appears, by the Klein
government.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could tell us then
whether that means that in his view bill 11 violates the Canada
Health Act and sanctions on the part of the federal government
will be forthcoming. Could he be clear about that? Time is of
the essence with respect to the possible NAFTA implications. Has
the federal government, whether in the department of justice or
trade or health, or somewhere, arrived at a point of view with
respect to the NAFTA implications of bill 11? Albertans and all
Canadians deserve to know this before the bill is passed.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has written to the Alberta
minister of health setting out views on bill 11 and what should
be done with it. The important thing is that we are committed to
upholding and enforcing the Canada Health Act. All should take
note of our commitment in this regard.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
in order to complete renovations on the parliament buildings,
public works purchased and renovated the St. Andrew's tower and
the East Memorial Building at a cost of $89 million. It then
began spending $9 million to renovate the justice building so
that MPs could be moved in while the House of Commons was worked
on.
Why has the minister delayed this work for at least two years,
at an additional cost of $90 million?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the
question of the hon. member, there has been no delay. Work on
the justice building is going as planned. Because of the new
communication technology that all members of parliament enjoy we
want to make sure that such tools of communication are installed
in the justice building before the building is turned over to
you, Mr. Speaker, and members of parliament. Work is going
according to schedule.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the justice building was supposed to have been completed
last summer; not this year, not next year, last summer. Instead,
it will sit empty until the summer of 2001.
1430
The commercial cost of this property is $25 per square foot or
$3.8 million per month. The total cost of keeping the justice
building empty for two years is over $90 million. Will the
minister order the department to complete the work so that the
parliamentary renovations can proceed on time and on budget?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, the work is
on time. I explained why it was taking a certain time to make
sure that when members of parliament move to the building they
can have the same installation and accommodation as they have in
the existing building.
Maybe the hon. member should ask his own House leader who sits
on the Board of Internal Economy. Maybe he would understand.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the human resources minister has been
telling the House that she changed her six point plan to correct
the serious deficiencies pointed out by Deloitte & Touche.
The firm told the House committee on Monday that the minister's
department assured them that the final plan incorporated Deloitte
& Touche's recommendations. I ask her to explain why a
comparison of the January version with the final version clearly
shows that the recommendations were not dealt with in any
meaningful way.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is incorrect. The
recommendations of Deloitte & Touche were incorporated.
What is interesting here is I recall that the hon. member, when
asked by the media about the six point plan, said it is something
that should have been implemented a long time ago. Does she think
differently now?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that was the last time I took the
minister's word for anything.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The minister uses the credibility of
Deloitte & Touche, but the fact is that the firm never saw the
final draft of her plan. The minister never even let on to
anyone that they gave her plan a failing grade, the plan that she
was bragging about.
The minister now says their advice was incorporated but there is
nothing to back that up. Deloitte & Touche were obviously
disapproving of the first draft. Why did the minister not make
sure they were satisfied with the final version before using
their name as an endorsement?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Deloitte & Touche was contracted to give
us advice on the draft. They did that. We implemented their
recommendations and the auditor general, having seen the final
plan, endorsed it.
The other thing I would like to point out yet again is that on
February 10 I presented that plan to the committee and I asked
for committee members to make any further recommendations they
would like to see in that action plan. I received no
recommendations from that party.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to Pierre-Yves Cartier, an officer of the RCMP, the
hands of the RCMP are being tied by Revenue Canada. This
situation is unacceptable.
How can the solicitor general explain that the RCMP, for which
he is responsible, is reduced to having to go on TV in order to
be able to continue with its investigation and to do its job?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the RCMP that
there was excellent co-operation. Under the laws of this country
there is some information that can or cannot be submitted from
one department to another, but there is excellent co-operation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
can the solicitor general provide this House with a guarantee
that the officer who did his job by denouncing the lack of
co-operation from the revenue department will not be the victim
of reprisals?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in the
House, I am not responsible for the internal operations of the
RCMP. I am also not responsible for any disciplinary action that
might be taken within the RCMP.
* * *
1435
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, after watching the minister fumble and stumble for days
in question period—
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Why are you minister? Why are you
minister if you are not doing anything? You don't have any
responsibility.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Wanuskewin.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, after days of
watching the minister stumble and fumble in question period the
human resources department slyly changed the contents of the six
point plan on its website.
Yesterday the six point plan on the website did not mention
anything about incorporating the advice of Deloitte & Touche.
Today mysteriously it does. There are five words strangely
added. Why was the minister trying to alter the record by
changing her website?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we added it for the benefit of members of
that party. Even though I have told them time and again, day
after day that we incorporated the recommendations of Deloitte &
Touche, they do not get it. I thought maybe if they read it on
the website they would.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have read it very carefully side by side. There
is no material difference from the draft to the final version.
Deloitte & Touche recommended this. They said “the draft plan
does not clearly assign leadership and responsibility. It does
not clearly assign to specific individuals the actions they are
responsible for. It does not establish timelines, deliverables
and milestones. It does not identify the systems and practices
needed to monitor progress”.
They are not in the final six point plan. If the minister is
prepared to change her website contents at the drop of a hat, why
did she not amend her plan to include the Deloitte & Touche
recommendations?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. We
incorporated the recommendations.
I say again that if the hon. member wanted to make further
recommendations for improvements I would have been glad to
receive them, but I received none because on that side of the
House they are not interested in this issue at all.
They want to cut a billion dollars from people with
disabilities. They do not want to help them get jobs. They want
to cut a billion dollars for young people, youth at risk who do
not have the opportunities to find employment that they so
desperately need. They want to cut a billion dollars from the
grants and contributions program so that those regions of the
country that have not been able to benefit from our economic
upsurge have got the opportunity—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the investigator himself, there are key players who
may elude the RCMP in the CINAR affair. There are persisting
rumors to the effect that one or more law firms specializing in
copyrights and close to the Liberals might be involved in this
affair.
What interest does the Minister of National Revenue have in
frustrating the investigation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue is
certainly not frustrating the investigation. That is totally
false.
The Income Tax Act is designed to protect the rights of
Canadians to privacy. As a country, we have decided, under our
legislation, that the personal financial data collected for the
purposes of the Income Tax Act should not be accessible to
police forces for investigation purposes.
This is what we decided as a parliament, as an institution. I
respect the decision made by this parliament. Some day that
decision will certainly be changed, but in the meantime, it is
the law of the land.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary leader tells us that the act will certainly be
changed.
This government cares a great deal about its image. Yet, when we
ask questions about Placeteco, we are told that the invoices
have disappeared. When we ask questions to the solicitor
general, he tells us he is not responsible for anything. When we
ask questions to the Minister of National Revenue, he cannot
talk.
1440
The RCMP investigator told us that the government's
interpretation of the act was very strict and that a more
flexible interpretation would allow them to find the guilty
parties. This is from a government that asked, in the Airbus
affair, that banking secrecy be ignored. Is there not a taint of
corruption around this government?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, the Bloc
Quebecois leader is stretching the facts somewhat, but I will
try to be polite. I do not want to make accusations.
What I said is that, if the Income Tax Act is changed some day,
we will certainly comply with it. The law is the law, and we
intend to comply with it.
In the meantime, I would ask the Bloc Quebecois leader to
consult with his colleague, the hon. member for Chambly, who
will recognize, as we all do in this House, that Canada's
legislation regarding privacy, particularly the data contained
in revenue files, is extremely important. The hon. member is
well aware of that reality, even if other members of the Bloc
Quebecois seem to forget it.
* * *
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as Air Canada continues to
consolidate its dominance of the domestic airline industry, the
minister claims that Bill C-26 is the only thing to protect
consumers.
The competition commissioner stated last fall that it was vital
that every opportunity be taken to promote and create
competition. Will the minister finally take the competition
commissioner's advice and create some much needed competition by
addressing the foreign ownership component and Canada only
carriers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not disagree with my hon. friend with
respect to competition, and that is why we have taken the
commissioner's advice. That was the basis of the report that he
gave us last fall. It was incorporated into the deal with Air
Canada which is being enshrined in the legislation.
We believe that there will be real competition as a result of
this bill. We believe that the commissioner has the powers on
predatory behaviour and predatory pricing. He will be able to
hold Air Canada to account. We do not think it is necessary to
surrender our sovereignty any further by raising the foreign
ownership limit.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): It is interesting, Mr. Speaker. The
minister could increase competition in a real and meaningful way
by getting a couple of his cabinet colleagues to sign an order in
council.
Even Air Canada's CEO Robert Milton stated today that he
supports and thinks that raising foreign ownership to 49% would
be good and healthy for the Canadian airline industry. Why does
the minister refuse to consider bringing greater competition into
the airline industry by raising the foreign ownership component
from 25% to 49%?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, because of the 10% rule and now the 15% rule Air
Canada does not care whether or not it goes to 49%. In effect
most of the shares will be owned by Canadians and control will
not go to any one group larger than 15%.
What about those other airlines? I ask my hon. colleague to go
to Air Transat, Royal Airlines and the charters and ask them if
they want to have some U.S. investor come in and takeover those
companies. I do not think they want that.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1998, 252
complaints were made against Air Canada for failure to comply
with the Official Languages Act.
In 1987, the former president of Air Canada, Pierre Jeanniot,
was aiming to have 24% of Air Canada's pilots francophone. In
1997, only 17% of its pilots were francophone.
Will the Minister of Transport promise before this House that
the bill on air transportation will make Air Canada and its
affiliates subject to parts V and VI of the Official Languages
Act, as proposed in the amendments of the Bloc Quebecois?
1445
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the bill currently before the House, we have
strengthened the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
I invite my colleague to read the bill. The provisions were
strengthened, because this government believes in effectiveness
and the right of all francophones to equal treatment across the
country, even in the air industry.
* * *
[English]
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is
committed to respect the unique perspectives and needs of rural
Canadians. Can the Secretary of State for Rural Development tell
the House what the federal government has been doing to respond
to the unique challenges faced by rural Canadians?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Rural
Development)(Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was pleased today to table
the first ever report to parliament on rural Canada called
“Working Together in Rural Canada”.
It is part of our rural dialogue where we have engaged some
7,000 rural Canadians to tell us what their priorities are in
rural Canada. This dialogue was continued this past weekend in
Magog where we had an opportunity to bring in 500 rural Canadians
from across Canada. In fact we had representatives from all
political parties, except the Canadian Alliance which did not
show up.
Quite frankly, rural Canadians themselves are telling us what
their priorities are. The report indicates how we are
responding. I look forward to the comments from rural Canadians
and parliamentarians on that report.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the government's unilateral cuts to medicare, hospitals
across the country have been forced to scale back core services
which were supposed to be covered by the Canada Health Act.
Instead of paying his fair share, what is the health minister is
doing? He is musing about adding more things which were never
covered. If the minister wants to spend money, why does he not
start paying his fair share for core services first?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the latest budget has testified to
the government's desire to assume its responsibilities in the
field of health care.
We have invested more. We have made commitments for the medium
term. We have also told our provincial and territorial partners
that, if we have an agreement on the priorities for the future,
there will be further investment in the area of health care.
I fail to see why the Canadian Alliance health critic is asking
this question.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, maybe the parliamentary secretary should realize that
the health minister is talking about an institute for
comprehensive medicine down in McMaster. That would intrude upon
the provincial responsibilities for both health and education.
I ask my question again. Why will the health minister not look
after core medical services before he sticks his nose into
provincial responsibility?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member might explain why his colleague the
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, a leadership candidate for
the alliance, has said that a two tier health system will
strengthen the public system, not erode it. Why would the
leadership candidate Tom Long say, “We are going to have to find
a way to involve the private sector”? Why does the candidate
Stockwell Day advocate user fees?
Instead of asking us questions about things we are already
doing, adding to and strengthening a public accessible medicare
system, why does the alliance not get together and explain why
its different candidates are going around, each in their own way,
proposing measures which will destroy medicare in this country?
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has been reluctant to answer questions
concerning the national missile defence system. The foreign
affairs minister is against this particular system, while the
national defence minister is in favour of Canada participating in
this system.
What is the Prime Minister's position? Is the Prime Minister
for or against Canada participating in a national missile defence
system?
1450
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said on numerous occasions that
the government has not taken a position on the matter.
The hon. member is not correctly characterizing the positions of
the two ministers he has noted. We have both indicated concerns.
We have both indicated the desire to have the matter debated and
discussed publicly before the government makes a decision. I
have also indicated quite clearly on previous occasions that the
United States government has not even taken a position. It has
not even asked us to be a part of this yet. Obviously this is
the time for discussion and public debate on the matter and
eventually the government will be taking a position on it.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
serious problems can arise from Canada's participation in this
system and I would say that Canada is participating. There is
evidence that Canada has already spent money on this system and
is participating in the system at the moment.
Because of the concerns Canadians have around this issue, I
would ask the Deputy Prime Minister, will the government ensure a
full debate in parliament before there is any more work or
participation by Canadians on the U.S. NMD system?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the policy paper before parliament in
1994 which forms the government policy, there is mention of the
national missile defence system and our involvement in terms of
research and consultation. That is all that is going on. There
has been no decision with respect to deployment by the United
States or of course any participation by us. In fact the
technology has not yet been perfected.
Certainly the government welcomes the widest possible
consultation, discussion and debate on the issue.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. I would like
to know on whose desk is the statement of requirement and
procurement strategy for the Sea King replacements sitting, his
or the Prime Minister's?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the government and
the government will make the decision. It is a very major
procurement and the government is going through the procurement
strategy. In fact the file is moving.
As I have said on numerous occasions, it is a priority for
acquisition. We have a timeframe for replacement of the Sea King
helicopters in 2005. Meanwhile we are spending some $50 million
to upgrade the current Sea Kings to make sure that between now
and their replacement they are able to function in a safe manner.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we know that the Sea King is now at a critical point and Talon
441 is proof. I am certain the minister can see that incident
summary in his sleep. To quote from the Friends of Maritime
Aviation's statement, “We now believe the elastic band has been
stretched as far as it can go”.
Will the minister go to the Prime Minister this afternoon and
ask him to initiate the maritime helicopter program before we
have a tragedy? Yes or no?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note that of the three people who made
a concerned statement, and I understand their concern, later the
retired general said, “We could not bring ourselves to say that
they are dangerous or they are unsafe, but there is no doubt
about it that we are fast approaching that critical point”. They
are not saying that it is at that point now.
As I indicated we are putting some $50 million into upgrades for
this equipment to make sure it is safe.
I have recently spoken directly to the chief of the air staff
and have his assurance that in fact these are safe to fly and
they will not fly unless they are.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today, May 4, is World Asthma Day. Today also marks the 100th
anniversary of the Canadian Lung Association.
We are reminded that each year an estimated 5,000 people die
untimely deaths due to poor air quality. Thousands more are
being treated for bronchitis, asthma and other breathing
problems. This coming summer will be no exception.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell the House what progress
is being made to make the air we breathe better for all
Canadians?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The number of Canadians
who die prematurely by reason of asthma and other respiratory
diseases is indeed appalling.
We are approaching the subject on two fronts. One is
domestically. We are attempting to work out with the provinces a
new agreement to limit airborne contaminants to levels which will
reduce that death toll.
1455
In addition, I have undertaken discussions with the United
States administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
These negotiations will continue until October. We hope to have
a transboundary agreement on ozone, which is one of the major
components of smog. I should add that is particularly important,
because some 30% to 85% of the smog in Canada is from American
sources.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, because of the cutbacks and strangulation of funds
for the RCMP in B.C., they are flatly refusing to guard any new
immigrants who come into B.C. on leaky ships this year. Yet the
immigration minister said on Tuesday “We are anticipating every
eventuality and we are prepared”.
If the government is so prepared, probably the solicitor general
can now tell us just who will guard those migrants.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member and the House
that we are preparing for all eventualities. There are a number
of partners involved and we are working together to ensure that
we are prepared. Whether one or none or many arrive and whether
they come by boat or plane or car, the government will be
prepared to respond as required to any eventuality this summer.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1997, the Anjou firm of International
Minicut received $360,000 to create 36 jobs. It was able to
create only 33 of the 36. As a result, Human Resources
Development Canada requested, according to the rules, that
$30,000 be reimbursed. Nothing like that happened in the case
of Placeteco, however. No invoices, no jobs created, and $1
million gone.
Are we to understand that, in the case of Placeteco, they are
trying to cover the Prime Minister's buddies?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again we have talked about this file over
and over in the House and 170 people continue to be working at
this company and its sister company. From our point of view that
is a good investment. I would remind the hon. member again that
the Government of Quebec supported this undertaking.
* * *
[Translation]
CRAB FISHERIES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last month,
more than 1,000 fish plant workers on the Acadian peninsula were
forced not to report for work. The reason was that the crab
fishers were not prepared to negotiate in good faith in
connection with the solidarity fund to compensate for the black
hole created by this government's employment insurance reform.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Would
he give some thought to giving the fish plant workers quotas on
the amount of crab taken by the coastal fishers, in order to
stabilize the solidarity fund and share the resource within the
community?
[English]
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not aware of this
particular situation but I will take it under advisement. As hon.
members know, snow crab quotas are issued and there is a plan on
a yearly basis renewed. I will certainly look into this matter
and get back to the hon. member.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister
keeps missing the point. We know that the Sea Kings have a good
maintenance regime and the ground crews are at the top of their
profession, but that is no longer enough.
Take for instance the Iroquois helo detachment commander's
report of March 1999 which indicates 35.5% of all missions were
cancelled due to aircraft problems.
Will the minister go to the Prime Minister and tell him to make
a decision or face tragedy?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Sea Kings do not fly
as much as we would like them to fly. That is why we need to
replace them quite obviously. I think the member is making the
point that the reason they do not fly is because we will not put
them up unless they are safe to put up. The safety of our
personnel is of utmost importance. We want to make sure if that
aircraft goes up it will be safe to fly and it will be able to
complete its mission.
Meanwhile we are not standing still on the replacement of the
Sea King. The file is moving and we are moving toward its
replacement.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Co-operation.
Over 150 million school age children in developing countries
especially have no access to basic education and millions are
operating in substandard systems.
Last week Canada was represented by the minister at the World
Education Forum in Senegal.
What action can be expected and having gone to this conference,
what is Canada's involvement in this issue?
1500
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I am very proud of the lead role
that Canada played at the forum, including the drafting of the
final strategy which calls for action on the ground.
One of the first things we are doing is calling for all the
developing countries to make education one of their major
priorities, including transparency in their budgets. Canada is
committed to working with any country that makes education one of
its major priorities.
I announced several projects while I was there. One of them was
for $50 million to Senegal which has made a major commitment to
education for all children, especially girls.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, the question today is not who is going to win the
Stanley Cup. We will wait for that.
I do have a question for the hon. House leader. Specifically,
what kind of business does he plan, funny business or otherwise,
over the next couple of days? I also want to know whether or not
the ever mercurial changes to the standing orders, which keep
getting sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, will actually come to a conclusion or will we keep
debating that for the rest of this parliament.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House
that the Ottawa Senators are no longer in the running for the
Stanley Cup, but I am sure they will do it very eloquently next
year.
[Translation]
However, while we are waiting for the Senators to come back and
win the Stanley Cup, I would like to inform the House about
upcoming business.
Bill C-22, the money laundering bill, is currently before the
House. When we have finished with this bill, if we have not
already, we will then call Bill C-25, the Income Tax Amendments
Act, 1999, followed by Bill C-27, the parks legislation.
1505
When second reading of that bill is completed, we will call Bill
C-5, respecting tourism, followed by Bill C-24, the excise tax
amendments. We will then consider Bill C-31, the immigration
bill, and Bill C-16, concerning citizenship.
[English]
On Monday we shall consider Bill C-11, the Devco legislation.
Starting on Tuesday we shall return to the listed bills.
If we have not reached Bill C-27 before Wednesday, we shall
start with Bill C-27 on that day. Similarly, if Bill C-31 has
not been completed by Thursday, we shall put it first on that
day.
This completes my report, other than wishing the Ottawa Senators
very best wishes for a Stanley Cup next year.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act to
facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, to
establish the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre
of Canada and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the third
time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia has 22 minutes left in debate.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, as you said I am resuming debate. In the first
half we had a few choice words about the way the government
proceeded to bring Bill C-22 to the House and, indeed, the
debacle that we have seen in that whole procedure, to the point
where we had to shut down debate yesterday.
Let us now turn to the bill itself. I received a research paper
from the Library of Parliament which gives a very good
explanation of Bill C-22. It received first reading in the House
of Commons on December 15, 1999. The broad purpose of the bill
is to remedy shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering
legislation, as identified by the G-7's Financial Action Task
Force, FATF, on Money Laundering in its 1997-98 report.
This is a quote from that report:
The only major weakness is the inability to effectively and
efficiently respond to requests for assistance in relation to
restraint and forfeiture. The use of domestic money laundering
proceedings to seize, restrain, (and) forfeit the proceeds of
offences committed in other countries is recognized as sometimes
ineffective, and legislation to allow Canada to enforce foreign
forfeiture requests directly should be introduced.
In addition, the FATF recommended that reporting requirements in
Canada be made mandatory, rather than voluntary, as is currently
the case, and that a “financial intelligence unit” be
established “to deal with the collection, management and
analysis and dissemination of suspicious transactions, reports
and other relevant intelligence data”.
What does this mean to the ordinary citizen either watching
these proceedings on televisions or reading these proceedings in
Hansard? First, this activity is a criminal activity. It
basically undermines Canada's financial and social systems by
increasing the power and influence of illegal business.
Experts estimate that some $300 billion to $500 billion in
criminally derived funds enter the international markets
annually. In Canada alone the estimates range from $5 billion to
$17 billion. The fact that they range from $5 billion to $17
billion gives me cause for concern. That being such a broad
spread, it is very clear that even our law enforcement officials
have not really been able to quantify this problem.
There are many ways to launder money, including through
financial institutions, foreign exchange dealers, significant
cash purchases, brokerage houses, foreign tax havens and
cross-border transfers. The methods of laundering money are
becoming more and more sophisticated, as I indicated in my
remarks before question period. Indeed, many of the transactions
are so immensely complex that there is no possible way, other
than with the power of the most high powered computer programmed
to do this, that we could actually conduct the kind of
transactions that are currently being undertaken by criminal
activity.
If Canada is viewed, real or otherwise—and I think it is
real—as having weak controls, we become a haven for organized
crime and money laundering.
1510
In the second reading of this, I drew to the attention of the
House the situation with YBM Magnex, which turned out to be a
money laundering operation for the Russian mafia, and the fact
that there were many prominent Canadians, names people would
know, who ended up being sucked into that vortex. Six hundred
million dollars disappeared as a result of YBM Magnex being a
money laundering operation and getting by the Ontario Securities
Commission and other organizations like that.
If we look at the situation of the $6 billion Bre-X debacle and
put the YBM Magnex on the back side of that, we can see why
people around the world are deeply concerned about the lax
attitude that Canada has displayed in this very important area.
As I also indicated prior to question period, it is not just the
issue of organized crime. There are also violent street gangs in
Toronto and Montreal that are channelling criminal profits to
tamil terrorists waging a bloody fight for an independent
homeland in Sri Lanka.
According to an RCMP intelligence report that was reported in
the Ottawa Citizen on March 27 this year, it said that an
extensive probe by the Mounties found strong connections between
outlaw gangs and the liberation tigers of tamil eelam, one of the
world's most dangerous groups. “There is clear evidence to
support the relationship and that the money involved is being
funnelled to the LTTE for extremist purposes in Sri Lanka”, says
the newly classified report obtained through access to
information.
Many people who come Canada as legitimate landed immigrants are
here to help us build our great nation. These people come to
this country looking at it as being a law-abiding country where
they can live in peace and harmony with their neighbours. They
come to this country looking at the opportunities that they have
to advance the fortunes of their own families. They come to this
country as a haven of peace. However, because of the laxity of
this government and its slowness to bring either dollar resources
or necessary legislation like this piece of legislation into
effect, law enforcement is unable to protect those very people
who come to this country to help us build this great nation.
Shame on the government, particularly for its delay in bringing
this legislation to the House of Commons, if only for that
reason.
The RCMP implicate the tamil criminal groups in a staggering
variety of activities, including extortion, home invasion,
attempted murder, theft, importation and sale of brown heroine,
arms trafficking, production and sale of counterfeit passports,
migrant smuggling, bank and casino fraud and money laundering.
This is from an RCMP security intelligence report.
The report goes on to say that the activity is escalating and
will likely become more difficult for police. It also says that
there are other armed conflicts and hot spots in the world where
there are allegations of smuggling profits that finance military
operations.
This is why we, as Canadians, whether we are recently landed
immigrants or our families have been here for a long time, should
care about this piece of legislation. Money laundering feeds
armed conflicts and illegal activities that threaten everything
from our families to our society, our national and international
economies and perhaps even world peace.
The act establishes a financial transactions and reports
analysis centre to receive the reports. Under normal
circumstances, as a Canadian Alliance MP, I would be opposed to
the enactment of any legislation that would set up yet another
analysis centre or another way to have more bureaucrats. However,
in this particular instance, the independence of the financial
transactions and reports analysis centre is absolutely critical
because of the level of expertise to track these transactions
that were described earlier.
1515
The level of expertise to analyze the reports as they come out
of the data that will be collected is very specialized. However
there is the whole problem of personal security, the security all
Canadians have from unreasonable search and seizure and big
brother overlooking our shoulders.
In this instance what we are doing under this bill is to
establish the financial transactions report analysis centre
totally apart from our enforcement agencies so that all
transactions will end up going through a highly sophisticated
microscopic sieve. From that sieve and from the entrails that
come out of the money flowing through it, skilled analysis will
say that we should be looking at this track of money or that
track of money.
The way this will work, as I understand the legislation, is that
then there would be a report to law enforcement agencies to say
here is something they might want to take a look at. That is it.
The idea then is that the law enforcement agencies would say that
they already are looking at a particular terrorist group or a
particular group of organized crime and that the preliminary
information, this heads-up that the financial transactions report
analysis centre has given them, fits the mould of what they are
already doing.
On the basis of the other police work, together with this
heads-up from the centre, they would then have to go to a judge
and fulfil all the ordinary obligations that would be required of
law enforcement agencies so that they could then undertake other
activity that would be outside where they could normally go.
To that extent this centre has to be separate because it has to
be highly sophisticated, not only the centre itself but the
people manning it. Additionally, the centre not being under the
thumb of, answerable to, or under the jurisdiction of any police
enforcement body or any military enforcement body gives me some
feeling of comfort that it will not be abused and that my civil
rights and the civil rights of all people in Canada will not be
compromised by the enactment of the legislation.
As I mentioned, the centre would report any suspicious
transactions or series of suspicious transactions to the
appropriate police force, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
if the information is relevant to tax or customs duty evasion,
CSIS if relevant to threats to the security of Canada, the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration and a foreign state if
there is an agreement with Canada on money laundering.
Concerns have been raised, as I have mentioned. On behalf of
people who have raised them, as the member of parliament
responsible for the official opposition I have been very
sensitive to any of the testimony that has come before committee
and any other research that I have been able to do to arrive at
the feeling of comfort that indeed the reports analysis centre
will be isolated from being able to easily do anything in terms
of infringing on our right to privacy.
I note that criminal defence lawyers and the federal privacy
commission warned that the reporting scheme could turn Canada
into a nation of snitches. With that in mind I listened to all
the testimony very closely. The Canadian Security Intelligence
Service said the transaction reporting machine could become a
bureaucratic monster. Again, we have taken a look at that. The
fact that it has to report back to the government and to
parliament is a very important issue, which again is why we feel
comfortable with the legislation.
CSIS proposed more selective measures that would target parties
known to engage in dubious activities, but it would be my
judgment that in all likelihood the centre would end up doing
that in any event.
I want to deal specifically with some comments in the March 4,
2000 edition of the National Post by Terence Corcoran who
wrote:
If passed, Bill C-22 would give Ottawa fresh authority to trap
the innocent, infringe on privacy, collect mountains of
information on citizens and put routine money transactions under
suspicion. It would also conscript lawyers, banks, accountants
and others into a national subculture of informants and snitches.
1520
With due respect to Mr. Corcoran, I think he got a little
carried away with his hyperbole. He went on to say:
In a letter to Justice Minister Anne McLellan last December, the
Canadian Bar Association listed some of the threats posed by
Ottawa's plan to increase its surveillance over money
transactions greater than $10,000. It said routine legitimate
business transactions could be disrupted and solicitor-client
relationships undermined.
Again, I was sensitive to this and other pronouncements by
people who have expressed concern about it. I am sorry, but I do
not see that as being a problem. I know a member from the
Toronto area was as upset as I was when we heard testimony from
the Canadian Law Association. It was really very unfortunate. It
was like they knew everything, that they were present but should
not have been included, that they should have an exemption just
because they are lawyers. It was just a tad thick.
Although I am sure there were grains of good information they
were giving us, I am sure many of us had to sift through an awful
lot of chaff that these lawyers were giving us. I agree with the
government that there were no amendments required to give
exemptions to the law profession.
I suggested that it would be a hole big enough to drive a truck
through. If somebody was intending to try to get around the
legislation and find exemptions in it, they could end up getting
their transaction through. By making an exemption for the
lawyers, anyone interested and possibly engaging in this kind of
nefarious activity would naturally choose a lawyer to do the
transaction as opposed to choosing an accountant or some other
professional. Unfortunately that testimony, although I am sure
it was sincere, was not singularly helpful. Mr. Corcoran went on
to say:
In the name of fighting organized crime, Ottawa also wants to set
up a new bureaucratic agency with big powers. The Financial
Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada would collect
information supplied by bank informants and lawyers,
and—depending on regulations—could end up with a licence to
harass the innocent and legitimate.
I say to Mr. Corcoran and other people who are concerned about
this issue that I take their expressions of concern as being
serious. In spite of all the missteps we have had in this
process, nonetheless there has been fundamental goodwill among
members of parliament. We have all been looking very closely to
ensure that the concerns brought forward by Mr. Corcoran and
others have been answered within the legislation.
One concern all of us should have is that there is an ever
increasing encroachment on our ability to be able to relate to
each other within society either as business people, as
neighbours or even within our own families.
The headline of an April 4 Globe and Mail article read
“Mob threat getting worse, RCMP says Top Mountie warns of
organized crime's threat to democracy”. That is not a false
threat at all. That is not hyperbole. We have seen the
tentacles of organized crime reach right into the Chamber. A
member of the Bloc Quebecois, his wife and his young child are
being threatened by organized crime. This is something that
comes to a neighbourhood near us, if not to our own homes. This
is something we have to stand on guard against and we have to
fight collectively.
As I have said many times, I have been desperately unhappy with
the amateur hour we have had in terms of getting the legislation
through the House.
I maintain a concern because I do not know. Because of this
flawed process I maintain a concern that two, three or four years
into the legislation we will probably need a massive review of
it, probably preceding the five year mandated review for the
legislation.
1525
We are faced with a delay created by the government of at least
three years to bring the legislation forward. Because of the
urgency of the legislation we have to enable the various public
servants that will bring the transaction centre into place to get
on with the job. This is an important tool to put into the hands
of our law enforcement people. Therefore we will support the
legislation proceeding through the House, to the Senate and
hopefully to royal assent as quickly as possible.
There are things that we can join hands on. We notice that
there has been full co-operation, to the best of my knowledge,
among all members of the House respecting the bill. Any
interventions I have made on behalf of the official opposition
have been made in the spirit of having a proper process to bring
this urgent legislation to successful completion and of making it
as good as we could possibly make it.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-22. This proposed
legislation on money laundering involves transactions through
financial institutions and other financial intermediaries with
the intent to conceal criminal profits and make them appear
legitimate.
Bill C-22 builds on the existing Proceeds of Crime Act. The
legislation institutes mandatory reporting of suspicious
financial transactions and of cross-border movement of large
amounts of currency. It creates an independent analysis centre
as has been remarked upon by the previous speaker, the mandate of
which will be to receive and manage reported information.
The legislation meets commitments that Canada made as a member
of the OECD and of the G-8. Canada is one of the last G-8
countries to establish such a regime. That was pointed out to a
parliamentary delegation of which I had the privilege of being a
part at the European Union in the month of March of this year
when we had an opportunity to discuss with our European
colleagues what they are doing in this regard.
In developing the bill, Canada has taken into consideration the
40 recommendations set out by the Financial Action Task Force on
Money Laundering which encourages the strengthening of
international co-operation with regard to the exchange of
information on currency flows.
Some of the reasons this is important is that money laundering
is now the world's third largest industry by value. It extends
far beyond hiding profits from narcotics. It now includes trade
fraud, tax evasion, organized crime, arms smuggling, bank,
medical and insurance fraud. In this country alone somewhere
between $5 billion and $17 billion are laundered each and every
year. With those kinds of gaps, $5 billion and $17 billion,
obviously nobody knows for sure how much, but it is estimated
worldwide that somewhere between $300 billion and $500 billion
U.S. are laundered in these ways. Tax evasion is not addressed
in the proposed legislation.
The recommendation of the New Democratic Party is to support the
legislation in principle. It is obvious that we should support
the introduction of any legislation that curbs illegal activity.
However there is some wariness on our part as to the lack of
certainty and of clarity in some parts of the bill.
We think that a number of concerns should be examined and
addressed further. There is a potential for charter violations.
The guarantees of reasonable search and seizure appear to be at
risk.
For example, the Criminal Lawyers' Association argues that the
standard of suspicion outlined fails to meet even the first and
fundamental requirements of reasonable grounds. The legislation
may also create an irreconcilable conflict for professionals,
such as lawyers who remain subject to certain codes of conduct
that prohibit them from disclosing information. It must also
provide a mechanism to absolve an individual from potential
liability that may result from disclosing such confidential
information.
1530
A second point is the possible pressure on consumers. The
reporting regime set up to track and communicate suspicious
transactions has at least two financial repercussions. One,
there is a cost to be borne by the taxpayer for the establishment
and maintenance of the tracking system. Second, in having to
establish compliance mechanisms there is a concern that the cost
for setting up reporting mechanisms for financial institutions
will be borne by the customers of those institutions and the
concern that there not be consumer gouging as a result.
A third point is with regard to the system's effectiveness.
There remains a series of concerns about the planned reporting
effectiveness. There is a warning that the new regime has the
potential to create a bureaucratic monster and there is a chance
that organized crime would be able to short circuit such a system
through a series of shadowy, sophisticated transactions. We
wonder whether money might not be better spent granting law
enforcement and investigative bodies additional resources to
detect and prosecute money laundering offences.
We are also concerned that the bill does not appear to address
technology based crimes, the white collar crimes which surely we
will see grow in future with the growth of the Internet and
computers in general. Technology based crimes include credit and
debit card fraud, telephone fraud, stock market manipulation and
computer break-ins. Increasingly organized crime syndicates are
using technological and digital means of communication, including
encryption and scanning devices, thus potentially circumventing
the provisions of this bill.
We would recommend to the government that a clearer and more
precise definition of what constitutes a suspicious transaction
be formulated. The subjective nature of the definition could
provide an excuse for compliance failure and as a result many
suspicious transactions might not be reported.
In addition, the use of a vague definition could result in
institutions over-reporting for fear of involuntary
non-compliance, thus creating unnecessary, unwarranted scrutiny of
innocent individuals.
We think that the proposed legislation must clearly address the
issue of the threat to the privacy of all Canadians and
especially the possible disclosure of information to Revenue
Canada should it involve a taxation matter. Obviously, strict
guidelines must be established in this area. The bill must also
address the possible violations of the guarantee against
reasonable search and seizure in the charter of rights and
freedoms.
In addition, the issue of tax-related offences could be
addressed. Tax offences occur when money is transferred to
offshore tax havens through companies, trusts and bank accounts.
The purpose obviously is to conceal assets from Revenue Canada.
Money laundering, on the other hand, involves the intent to
conceal criminal profits and make them appear legitimate.
It is perplexing that even the definition of a suspicious
transaction, a fundamental principle indeed, is to be determined
after the legislation is passed. Many other key dispositions
would be determined after that fact by regulation. These
include: the appointment of the centre's director and the
determination of his or her remuneration; the determination of
the individuals or businesses that will be subject to this
legislation and how they will report; the delay which will be
granted to financial institutions to retrieve and report
information; bodies and institutions which will be required to
report on how records are to be maintained; the delay a financial
institution must respect; and the length of time records are to
be kept.
In agreeing to a bill such as this we also wonder about things
like the Tobin tax which the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle
brought forward. Indeed, it was passed as a private member's
bill in this House. Why could that not be established with the
same alacrity with which we are working in this area?
1535
As the House knows, a Tobin tax framework would be an excellent
initiative to establish an international monitoring system of
currency flows.
Those are the points I wish to make. After listening to the
remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia I was pleased
to note that the financial reporter for the National Post,
Terence Corcoran, has many concerns about this bill. That
resolves my belief that the bill is worthy of support. It is one
of the few things that has resulted from the fact that the
National Post is now in existence that I do not have to
look at Terence Corcoran's column in the Globe and Mail.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-22 at third reading
to address some of the very important issues about the
legislation which would create the new money laundering oversight
agency that would be positioned to help protect Canadians from
organized crime and be part of a global effort to combat the
insidious and pervasive nature of organized crime.
Like most business activities, organized crime has become very
much a global enterprise. As such, Canada's procrastination and
tardiness in not addressing this issue earlier is unconscionable.
It is unfortunate that the government had not seen the need to
address this issue earlier.
As hon. members have noted, we are lagging behind other members
of the G-8 and the OECD in terms of pursuing this very important
initiative of establishing within our country a sound oversight
agency to reduce the incidence of money laundering.
It is a huge issue. The estimates of money laundering are even
difficult to get a handle on. Some estimates in Canada are as
low as $5 billion or $8 billion and some are as high as $20
billion. There is a huge variance and disparity on this one
issue. That indicates the degree to which we are really only
beginning to understand it.
One concern I have about this legislation is that it addresses
in many ways yesterday's issue, that is, the very conventional
means of money laundering. Nowhere in the legislation or in the
new agency do I see some sort of commitment that the agency will
have the type of resources and technological strength to address
some of the current and emerging issues of technologically
oriented money laundering.
With the sophistication of financial instruments and the
inability of sovereign governments to track either cross-border
financial transactions or intra-state transactions, whether they
be derivatives, which are not considered to be a particularly
sophisticated financial instrument in the current context, the
fact is that increasingly we are dealing with these sophisticated
financial instruments and the ability of any agency to track
transactions, large or small, intra-state or cross-border, is a
real challenge. I would hope that this agency will have not only
the resources to pursue technologically driven approaches to the
very serious issue of money laundering, but beyond that would
work with the private sector and many of the companies involved
on the Internet security side to develop private sector
solutions.
The technology being developed by both American and Canadian
companies in these areas is very advanced.
I would hope that the government would do a better job at seeking
input from the private sector in developing more sophisticated
approaches to this problem than it has in other areas.
1540
The accountability of this new agency has been of significant
concern and remains a significant concern. Amendments have
helped and have been constructive in assisting to ensure that
there will be some level of accountability for this agency and
some level of rigorous reporting that has the capacity to provide
some checks and balances. That is all well and good, but we have
to be vigilant as parliamentarians to ensure that we provide
mechanisms to protect Canadians against these all powerful new
agencies.
I do not think that any law-abiding Canadian would have any
difficulty with getting tough on money laundering. That being
the case, it is very important to separate the powers of these
agencies. For example, I expressed concerns at the time of the
creation of the new Revenue Canada agency that it could emerge as
an IRS style agency, Godzilla the tax collector, which would have
the power to persecute and relentlessly pursue individual
Canadian taxpayers, and in many cases bring about undue suffering
and unfair treatment of ordinary law-abiding, tax-paying
Canadians.
The more powerful the agency, the more difficult it is for
individual Canadians to muster the resources to fight it. My
concern has been and continues to be with the new money
laundering agency that we ensure that any sharing of information
between this new agency and the Revenue Canada agency is done
under very strict conditions.
For example, if the new money laundering agency sees some level
of evidence to suggest money laundering and feels that sharing
that information with Revenue Canada would help bolster the new
agency's case in pursuing a case of money laundering against an
individual or a group of individuals, that could be seen as
being reasonable.
If, on the other hand, there is not sufficient evidence to
suggest money laundering, but if the new agency sees some
evidence that there may be some level of tax evasion and shares
that information with the new Revenue Canada agency, I think that
would be overstepping the boundaries and would be leading to an
incredibly powerful, turbo-charged Revenue Canada agency that
could wreak havoc on the lives of ordinary Canadians. We have to
be careful to ensure that there is a Chinese wall between the
Revenue Canada agency and this new money laundering agency.
The nebulous nature of the description of suspicious
transactions is also disturbing. It seems to be a very
qualitative description that is very difficult to narrow in a
substantive way.
The issue of resources is very important. Certainly the RCMP
calls this legislation long overdue, but we have to ensure that
the RCMP on a national level is funded properly to pursue some of
these activities and work with this agency. It is critical to
ensure that we not create these new agencies without providing
some level of resources to ensure that they can do their jobs and
at the same time maintain our traditional policing of white
collar crimes through the RCMP in a way that is consistent and
which provides over a period of time a reasonable level of
support and resources. The government has not provided ongoing
and consistent levels of support to the RCMP, and in fact has
starved the activities of the RCMP on a national level.
1545
The Progressive Conservative Party supports this legislation.
We support some amendments which in my opinion improve the
accountability of the new agency. This is a step in the right
direction but the government is prone to taking baby steps as
opposed to more substantive steps.
While we do recognize that this is a step forward, a lot more
needs to be done to ensure that ordinary Canadians are protected
against organized crime. In the future we must work more
proactively with our trading partners and with our partners in
the G-8 and the OECD to develop solutions and introduce them
within our borders earlier as opposed to always playing catch up
and lagging behind our partners on something as important as
money laundering and organized crime.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Mr. Bob Kilger: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There have been some discussions and there is probably
some ongoing work relative to a matter concerning the member for
Rimouski—Mitis. It would only be a matter of a few minutes so I
wonder if we could suspend the House until that matter is before
us. I believe it would take less than five minutes, which seems
to be the indication. I wonder if we could suspend to the call
of the Chair and then reconvene the House to deal with the matter
of the member's riding name change with all the information we
require.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the wish of the
House to suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.48 p.m.)
1550
SITTING RESUMED
(The House resumed at 3.52 p.m.)
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-445
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you will find consent in the
House for the following motion: I move:
That notwithstanding any standing order, Bill C-445, an act to
change the name of the electoral district of Rimouski—Mitis,
standing on the order of precedence on the order paper in the
name of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, be deemed to have been
concurred in at report stage with the following amendment:
That Bill C-445, in clause 1, be amended by replacing the words
“Rimouski—Neigette et La Mitis” with the following:
“Rimouski—Neigette-et-La Mitis”; and
That the bill be deemed to have been read a third time and
passed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the parliamentary
secretary have unanimous consent to introduce the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1555
[English]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-25, an act to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and
the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate Bill C-25. Whenever we bring
legislation before this place that comes from the Department of
Finance, in fact legislation that comes from anywhere in
government, one of the things we should be doing is examining
very closely that legislation to determine whether or not it is
working to enhance Canada's productivity as a nation. I am going
to argue that Bill C-25 does not seriously do that.
I am going to argue that most of the legislation that comes from
the government in fact does not enhance our productivity as a
nation. That is one of the reasons Canada is chronically an
underachiever. It is one of the reasons we continue to fall
behind in the world. Any objective review of the facts will bear
that assertion out. I think it is absolutely the case. We can
point to lots of research that will underscore what I have just
stated.
I want to run through why I think it is so critical that we
start to improve our productivity as a nation. It is a simple
fact that when a country becomes more productive, the standard of
living increases. This is an obvious truth; it is self-evident
in a sense. When we produce more things of value, it means we
have more income, more money. That allows us to spend it on
things that are important to us, not the least of which is
ensuring we have a good health care system and the things that
are important to people that they finance sometimes through their
government.
Not very long ago despite the best efforts of the government, a
government that has been in power now for seven years, we saw
another report which indicated that the productivity gap between
Canada and the United States is widening. It is getting larger.
This should be alarming to us because over the last couple of
years report after report after report has said that the Canadian
federal government should be worried about this and it should
start to do something about it.
Sadly, apparently the government is deaf to that message. It
does not seem to understand. It cannot see the connection, which
I argue is self-evident, that if we produce more things that
people value, we are going to have a higher standard of living.
The government cannot seem to figure that out.
We are in a position now where with every passing day we see
Canada fall far short of its potential which means that Canadians
are far poorer than they need to be. That is not just a hard
economic fact, it is a personal human tragedy for many people. It
is wrong when we as legislators have the ability to make changes
to make this country better, more productive and wealthier that
we do not do it, that we sit on our hands.
I am imploring the government to listen carefully to the
argument I am going to make. It is one of many arguments that
others have made imploring the government to do the same thing.
I mentioned a minute ago that the productivity gap continues to
widen between Canada and the United States. It is important to
measure us relative to the United States because in many ways
there are things we can compare. We speak the same language,
share the same continent and engage in many of the same kinds of
industries. It was not long ago when Canada had a standard of
living equally as high as that of the United States.
I do not think it is a birthright that we should have a standard
of living that is higher than the United States or any other in
the world, but if it is achievable we should strive for it. We
know now, according to reports by people like John McCallum, the
chief economist of the Royal Bank, that Canada has fallen far
behind the United States, a country with which our standard of
living was equal.
1600
In his last report, Mr. McCallum pointed out that our standard
of living was now two-thirds of that of the United States. If we
keep going the way we will soon be at 50% of that of the United
States. Bill C-25, and Bill C-32 which we addressed the other
day, do not go anywhere far enough to addressing these
fundamental problems.
The first thing we must do to ensure that our country becomes a
lot more productive is to remove the impediments to wealth
creation. We must beat down burdensome regulations that have
outlived their usefulness. There are tens of thousands of
regulations on the books today that nobody in any particular
industry can be expected to know all about. We cannot understand
thousands of regulations that affect each and every sector of the
economy. No one can possibly know all the regulations but we are
somehow expected to comply with them.
Second, we still have interprovincial trade barriers that cost
the economy a tremendous amount of money. In many cases, it is a
lot easier, for instance, for Ontario to trade with Michigan than
it is with Quebec, which is crazy. The federal government has
the power in the constitution to ensure that those trade barriers
are broken down. However, it refuses to act for reasons that I
cannot understand.
One of the biggest impediments falls under the umbrella of tax
policy. Something the government cannot seem to figure out is
that high marginal tax rates hold back our economy. We have high
marginal tax rates. What is important, when we talk about ways
to make the economy more productive, is the tax that we pay at
the margin. What I mean by that is, if we have an income in
Canada of say $80,000, every dollar we earn beyond that we pay
over 50% to the taxman.
It appears to people who are innovators or entrepreneurs who
invent things that they are being punished for the crime of
producing these things that are good for the economy, for their
families and for the world. Their reward is to pay higher taxes.
The result is that many of these people get frustrated. They say
“If I am not going to be valued in my country, then I will go
elsewhere”. That phenomenon is called the brain drain. Some
people in the government deny that it happens, the Prime Minister
being one of them, but according to the evidence there is a brain
drain, and that is beyond question.
If we really want to find out about that all we have to do is go
to one of the high tech firms in Ottawa and Kanata and ask them
how many of their people have left for the United States or other
jurisdictions. We will find out that brain drain is a real
problem. When we talk about the high tech field, we are talking
about the field that will create the lion share of the wealth
around the world in the next several decades. As legislators, we
are crazy if we do not do something about that.
It is public policy that is standing in the way. This is not
because we have some natural disadvantage in Canada. On the
contrary, we have all the natural resources in the world at our
fingertips. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world
when it comes to natural resources. We have an educated public.
We have great human resources. Unfortunately, we have a
situation where public policy is standing in our way. The only
people who can change it are the people in this place.
Sadly, that government across the way is fixed in cement when it
comes to making the types of changes were are talking about.
People are paying for it in the form of standards of living that
fall far below their potential. That is a shame. Governments
should not punish the people they purport to serve. I would
argue that this government, through neglect, is doing exactly
that.
1605
I will make the case that this is happening by pointing to the
OECD statistics from 1988 to 1998. During that 10 year period
Canada's real output per capita, the standard of living of
Canadians, grew by only 5%. Over that same 10 year period we saw
the output per capita in Mexico grow three times as fast; in
France, three times as fast; in Australia and in the United
States, four times as fast; in Norway, six times as fast; and in
Ireland, a staggering eighteen times as fast. Why is that? Is
it because Ireland has so many more resources than Canada? No.
It is because it put in place the right public policy, something
this government has failed to do.
What I want to talk about now is in the context of the Ontario
budget that came down yesterday. One thing that the Government
of Ontario understands and the federal government does not
understand is that we are in a global competition. If we do not
react and put in place public policies that make our jurisdiction
an attractive place to invest, then we will be left behind and
our people will pay the price in the form of a falling standard
of living. That is exactly what has happened to Canada.
Let us consider what happened in Ontario on Monday when the
Ontario government brought down the budget. When it brought down
the budget it made sure that it lowered corporate taxes so that
they would be lower or the same as many American states. It
lowered provincial income taxes to the point where they are now
the lowest in Canada. What does that mean? It means that the
Ontario government is sensitive to the fact that if it does not
get taxes down it will lose crucial investment that will go
somewhere else in the world.
Let us consider what happened with the Alberta budget. The
Alberta government brought down a very unique tax proposal. It
is essentially a single tax rate of 11%. It is designed to
attract people to Alberta and to keep people who are currently
there. We understand that when we attract investment and the
people who create jobs everyone will ultimately benefit. The
Alberta government understands that.
I would argue that the Government of the United States at times
in its history has very much understood that. I think it is
shocking that the United States, which has 10 times Canada's
population, spends more per capital on public health care than we
do. How do they do that? It certainly does not distribute it
the same way and some people are left out. We eschew that system.
We do not agree with it. However, how does it do that? How
come it is not going bankrupt?
At the same time, how does the United States do that and still
spend so much more as a percent of its GDP on military financing?
How does it do that while at the same time have a debt to GDP
ratio that is far lower than ours? In other words, it did not go
into debt or borrow money to do this. How does it fund all those
things? It is able to do that because its economy is much more
productive. The output of the average American is much higher
than that of the average Canadian. Why is that? Is it because
they are smarter? Of course not. Do they work harder? Sometimes
they do, but that is really not the key. The difference is that
the United States has the proper incentives in place to encourage
people to go out and create wealth. When wealth is created, some
of it is paid to the government.
That is how it is able to finance all those things with much
lower taxes than we have in Canada.
1610
I just pointed out that the United States spends more than
Canada on public health care and far more on defence, but it has
a much lower debt per capita and much lower taxes, about 30%
lower, than Canada. The only way that can happen is if each
individual American produces more. The way to ensure they
produce more is to lower marginal rates. That is critical. That
is something our government cannot get through its head.
In the last budget the government cut taxes very minimally but
it did not do anything at all about lowering marginal tax rates.
We missed a golden opportunity to send a message to the rest of
the world that we are open for business and that we will value
investment if it is brought here because then everyone gets to
benefit from it. If it goes somewhere else it will benefit
someone else. It is time we learned that lesson. How do we do
this? How do we turn this ship around?
We must first change our attitude. We must look at legislation
like Bill C-25 or Bill C-32 and ask what it does to improve the
productivity of the country and, by extension, the standard of
living of Canadians. When we ask that question, we say that we
will beat down marginal rates. That is why the Canadian Alliance
is advocating solution 17, this idea of lowering taxes for all
Canadians at the low end, the middle and the high end. It is a
single rate tax proposal. It has three elements. One element is
to raise the basic and married exemptions to $10,000. In doing
that, we would lift 1.9 million low income Canadians right off
the tax rolls. They will not pay any more tax. This plan also
benefits people on the low end. We would extend a $3,000 per
child deduction to every family in Canada with children under the
age of 16. Right away $26,000 of income would be exempted for a
single income family, or a dual income family for that matter,
with two children. After that, we propose a 17% tax rate for
everyone.
We would knock down the hurdles that make it difficult for
people to climb up the income scale. The way it is now, when we
begin to climb up the income scale, bang, we are into a higher tax
bracket. All of a sudden the incentive to continue to work
harder is gone.
In the finance committee's majority report in December, the
Liberals on the committee said:
The greatest economic gains, however, will be achieved when
marginal tax rates, especially the highest ones, are reduced.
Those were Liberal members who were arguing this because they
understood something that the government, in general, does not
understand, which is that high marginal taxes impede
productivity.
We argue that we must beat down those rates and not fall a
little less quickly behind the Americans, the Irish, the U.K. and
other countries, but to catch up and go beyond them. It is a
sin, in a country as naturally wealthy as ours and with the human
resources that we have, that our standard of living continues to
decline relative to all these other countries around the world.
It is a sin not to fulfil our potential, but that has been the
legacy of this government. It has allowed that to happen. The
Prime Minister is the one who sticks his head in the sand.
If members doubt for a moment any of what I am saying, they
should reflect on the Prime Minister's sanguine attitude toward
the fall of the Canadian dollar. “A low dollar is good”, he
says. However, a low dollar is a reflection of the strength of
the economy. Our dollar today dropped about a quarter of a cent,
down below 67 cents. Unbelievable. In the mid-seventies to late
seventies it was higher, and that reflected our standard of
living being so much higher relative to the Americans. On that
fact alone, the government should stand indicted of a great crime
which is to allow Canada to underachieve. Canadians,
individually, are poorer for it.
1615
I will conclude by moving an amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following: “this House
declines to give second reading to Bill C-25, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation
Act, 1999, since the principle of the bill does not provide for a
Single Rate Tax Plan as proposed in solution 17.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I heard the comments of the
member for Medicine Hat. The party opposite uses the expression
“marginal tax rates”. What are marginal tax rates? Marginal
tax rates are taxes at the margin; what an individual will be
taxed for every incremental dollar. It can apply to anyone in
the income tax system, but when members opposite talk about
marginal tax rates they talk about marginal tax rates at the high
end. While it is true that the government has not reduced
marginal tax rates at the high end as much as we have reduced
marginal tax rates at the middle income and low income levels, we
have reduced taxes significantly.
In budget 2000 we have a tax package of $58 billion as a
minimum. The economy continues to tick away at a growth rate of
about 4% annually. There have been 18 consecutive quarters of
growth. The way the member opposite was speaking we would think
it was doom and gloom. There have been 18 straight quarters of
growth in the country. We are leading the G-7 and the OECD
countries. In terms of employment growth, we are leading the
G-7. Unemployment is at its lowest level in a generation—in 24
years. I could go on and on about the good news. I am glad that
Canadians do not listen all that carefully to the doom and gloom
across the way.
I would like to address the member's premise in terms of the tax
rates at the high end of the income tax scale. That really
coincides with the opposition's flat tax proposal. Let me give a
comparison. A taxpayer—
1620
The Speaker: I do not know how we are going to divide
this. You are asking a question, I believe. Perhaps you could
put a question so that we would have time for a few more.
Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I was building up to a
question. I will leave the subject of the flat tax for a moment
and come back to it later.
The member for Medicine Hat talked about the huge amount of
money spent in the United States on health care. Will he
acknowledge that in the United States, because of its private
health care system, fully 30% of the costs of the total health
care system is spent on administration, filling in forms?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is or
it is not. I am not advocating that we embrace the U.S. system.
In fact, as I said in my speech, we do not agree with it. It is
the wrong system.
My point was that the U.S. economy produces so much more wealth
per person that it is able to fund public health care to a
greater degree than Canada. I think my friend across the way
should pay attention to that fact. Whether the administration
eats up 30% or whatever is irrelevant to this debate.
My point is that the government is anaesthetising itself with
happy talk about the growth in our economy. The truth is that
one of the ways we are subsidizing the growth in our economy is
by allowing our dollar to sink, producing a feeling of good
times, but at the same time not preparing our economy in the
proper way to take advantage of the new economy. We are allowing
the government to cruise, perhaps through to another election
campaign, sacrificing the best interests of Canadians in doing so
and making us poorer in the long run.
My friend across the way must acknowledge that if he is going to
be completely upfront and forthright with Canadians.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the hon. member opposite who asked a
question of my colleague, I would like to ask him what his view
is of yesterday's Ontario budget which made cuts to corporate
income tax and the capital gains tax. That has actually done
more for the Canadian economy, for which the Liberals would like
to take credit.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, first, it is a
recognition of the fact that people in the Government of Ontario
understand that they have to be leaders when it comes to
attracting wealth and talent from around the world, so they move
to cut all of their taxes significantly.
The federal government seems to think that if taxes are cut in
the middle, very marginally by the way, only about $8 billion
over five years, when we net everything out—my friend across the
way laughs, but I am happy to do the math for him—
Mr. Roy Cullen: I have heard it.
Mr. Monte Solberg: He has heard it, but the government
does not include $30 billion in tax hikes for Canada pension plan
premiums when it does its figuring. Eliminating bracket creep is
not a tax cut. It means that we will not have future automatic
tax increases. That is not a tax cut.
With regard to the child tax benefit, the government is talking
about it as though it were a tax cut. It is a social program by
any reasonable definition.
My friend across the way is completely deluded if he thinks that
somehow Canadians are going to end up being $58 billion better
off because of what the government brought down in the last
budget. That is simply not the case.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-25 and comment on
the exchange that took place between my colleague from Medicine
Hat and the parliamentary secretary regarding the $58 billion
which the Liberal government is talking about as being tax cuts.
As my colleague from Medicine Hat indicated, there really are no
tax cuts. We simply have to ask Canadians if they see more money
in their pockets. It is a simple question. All members should
go to their ridings and ask this question of their constituents:
Have you seen the so-called tax cuts that the Liberal government
has brought down in this budget; the $58 billion which it is
touting?
They will not find Canadians who say that they have received any
tax cuts. Where are these tax cuts? I do not know where these
tax cuts are. Canadians do not see them.
1625
The claim by the government that there is $58 billion in tax
cuts is all accounting and bookkeeping which the government has
brought forward so it can spin it to the country that there are
tax cuts.
I would like to address two areas. One deals with what
Canadians are facing. The other deals with the impact of the
government's fiscal policy on international trade.
I have received constituent complaint after constituent
complaint, complaints of the draconian measures that Revenue
Canada takes when going after people who cannot afford to pay,
unfairly squeezing money out of them, putting them into more
misery.
The government says that Revenue Canada has a system of fairness
and that people can complain. I can tell the House that is not
happening. What is happening is that Canadians are calling their
members of parliament. Any member of parliament would tell us
that Canadians are complaining about the draconian measures which
the bureaucrats are taking at Revenue Canada.
I received a call this morning which concerns me. A constituent
of mine is having problems with Revenue Canada. This case was
given to the Minister of National Revenue six months ago and we
have not had a reply. My constituent phoned the agent who seized
an aircraft from U.S. Customs. What did this bureaucrat tell my
constituent? He said “You went to your member of parliament.
You complained to the minister. I am sorry, but we are going to
take our sweet time in dealing with this”. Is that how we deal
with Canadians?
I have another case dealing with immigration bureaucrats, from
whom I have written proof that they say to members of parliament
“Sorry, we will not respond to your inquiries”. I would like
to tell these bureaucrats that members of parliament have been
elected by Canadians. We are the voice of Canadians on the
street. It is their democratic right to come to us for help. It
is our right to ask the government and the bureaucrats questions
and it is our right to expect a response.
Is that happening? No, it is not happening. What is happening
now is that we are seeing the bureaucrats taking over, making
decisions and then telling members of parliament that they cannot
respond to them. This is becoming a trend which is quite
disturbing.
With respect to the tax cuts which the government is talking
about, time after time calls have come into my office asking
where are these tax cuts. Where is this tax relief?
A constituent came into my office. He had been granted a CPP
disability pension. Under the CPP disability plan he was
eligible for a claim because he was recognized as having health
problems. He is disabled. When he filled out his income tax
forms and included the disability credit, lo and behold, Revenue
Canada said “No, you are not disabled. This disability claim is
disallowed”.
How can one arm of the government give him a cheque, saying that
he is disabled, when another arm of the government, Revenue
Canada, is actually telling him that he cannot claim the
disability credit and, therefore, will have to pay tax? Then
Revenue Canada charges interest on it, and this poor man just
cannot afford to pay. He is on disability from CPP. How does
this work? I do not know.
1630
The government says that it is compassionate and is giving a tax
credit. Students and single parents have come to me who cannot
pay. Do members know what is killing them? It is the so-called
interest and penalties, even if it is Revenue Canada's fault.
That is the problem.
At times Revenue Canada will not tell the constituent what it is
doing. It just goes ahead and assesses without giving due
notice. That is why my colleague from Calgary Southeast is
presenting a taxpayer bill of rights. That is the best
legislation that could be brought down to give Canadians at least
a voice against the draconian measures taken by the bureaucrats
of Revenue Canada.
What can be done about a system which charges penalties and
interest and says that we have to pay it? People are already
facing problems and having difficulty paying in the first place.
These are not people who are trying to cheat. They are not
denying their incomes. It is not that. They are not making much
income but the problem they are facing is that Revenue Canada
without informing them is taking draconian measures.
They come to our offices and at times we are successful, but why
does it have to take us to do it? Why cannot the government do
it? This is a concern which I thought was appropriate to bring
out when we are talking about Bill C-25.
I am the international trade critic and I would like to talk
about the government's fiscal policy on international trade. Many
times I have heard the Minister for International Trade mention
very proudly that 43% of our GDP or one out of three jobs is tied
to international trade. He says this proudly. As a matter of
fact he said it today.
I refer to book entitled “Africa Trade Strategy 2000”. That
is fine and I accept it. We are proud of what is going on.
However, I have a question to ask of him. Why has there been no
trade mission to Africa? The Minister for International Trade
rightly said that when Canadian companies are interested we will
have a trade mission to Africa. The essence of the point is:
when Canadian companies or businesses are interested in doing it.
The Minister for International Trade and all the trade officials
that work for the Department of International Trade around the
world are promoting trade. Trade means jobs for Canada. We all
know that. They are promoting trade to the best of their
ability, signing deals, creating corridors and opening windows of
opportunity for Canadian companies. That is great.
The problem is that it is for Canadian companies. With the high
taxation that the government's fiscal policy has created and the
refusal of the Prime Minister to recognize that, will Canadian
companies at the end of the day be able to take advantage of the
international windows of opportunity? Absolutely not. As the
minister said, he may go out there and find there are no
companies.
A problem is also originating out of this, which is evident even
from EDC's list of clients. We have a serious problem henceforth
with calling for EDC's privatization. We are getting
concentrically narrower and narrower and narrower with only a few
Canadian companies out of the whole Canadian economy. I can name
a couple of them, Bombardier and SNC-Lavalin.
These are the companies that are taking advantage of it. The
Canadian economy is growing. There are companies all over the
country that would like to do international trade. We need to
expand to get them to take advantage of international trade.
1635
We cannot restrict it to companies that are benefiting from
grants and that have connections with the government. We have to
open it up. That can only happen if there is sound fiscal policy
by the government. Lowering taxes is the peak criterion. Time
after time every business leader says that productivity has
curtailed and taxes are too high. At the end of the day the
government refuses to listen. The Prime Minister says that if
they do not like it they can leave the country.
About a week ago I saw an article in the paper indicating that
500 Newfoundlanders were going to Ireland to work. Companies
from Ireland came to Newfoundland and asked people to work for
them. What does that tell us? It tells us that in Ireland the
economy must be booming. There is a shortage of people so they
come to Newfoundland, and rightly so. Let them come to
Newfoundland. If Newfoundlanders can find work in Ireland,
great.
We can look at the massive change that has taken place in
Ireland because of lower taxes. Ireland looked at its business
environment and said that its economy had to be productive. It
did that. Today its companies are coming to Canada looking for
workers.
Our government refuses to do that. The Minister for
International Trade and everybody else including me will proudly
say that we are trying to promote international trade. That is
good for Canada. International trade provides jobs. When we try
to sell business opportunities in the international market to
Canadian companies they say cannot do it. They cannot expand
because people are leaving the country. They do not have the
workforce and taxes are very high.
As I was saying, it is critically important that we have a sound
fiscal policy. That will create an environment where business
can flourish, which in turn means jobs for Canadians, which in
turn means prosperity for Canadians. If we do not do it, the
prosperity of Canadians will go down and down. It is a question
we need to be worried about because Canada has the potential. We
are touted as the best country in the world. If we do not stop
this now, we will start slipping.
I think we already are slipping, when we look at our partners
that compete with us on the international trade scene. We have
started to lose ground to them rapidly. If everybody else is
recognizing the problems of productivity and high taxation and
are addressing those issues, when will our government address
them?
In solution 17 that my party proposed we are asking for the
general corporate tax rate to be reduced from 28% to 21%. We are
asking for the payroll tax, the EI premium, to be reduced to $2.
We are asking that the small business tax rate be reduced from
12% to 10%.
We do not have to be rocket scientists to know what all this
means. It will mean more money in the hands of businesses and of
Canadians. More money in their hands means more consumer
spending, which means companies become productive, the business
environment has the strength to grow and we will be looking at a
robust economy.
If we fail to do that it will not happen.
1640
The international trade agreements we are signing are opening
the doors for other countries to come here as it is opening the
doors for us to go first. If we are not going to go, they are
going to come here. When they come here there are jobs for
Canadians, but we would be weakening Canadian companies. We want
them to be strong and to take advantage of the ongoing
globalization era around the world.
It is a question of priorities. Yesterday the Ontario
government introduced a budget which targeted the business sector
and a reduction of taxes as its number one priority. It is the
largest province and it is doing well. I was at the dinner and I
can say there was a great sense of optimism in that province. In
my home province there is also a great sense of optimism. Those
two provinces are optimistic. The question we might ask is why.
The answer is simple. Their economies are becoming robust, not
because of the federal government but because of the provincial
governments which have taken the lead in reducing taxes.
The federal government is refusing to recognize the results. It
is refusing to recognize the evidence that is out there. There
is evidence of those provinces reducing taxes. The European
Union started reducing taxes. If we are not careful, even with
the NAFTA trade we are doing with our neighbour to the south we
can start losing ground. Nothing will stop them. They will be
going down to Mexico.
We hope that by bringing it to light the government will
recognize it and do something about it. At this time I would
like to move an amendment to the amendment.
The Speaker: The amendment is in order. It would add
those words after the words “solution 17”.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given that we will be strict on
time in terms of questions and comments, I feel like someone at a
smorgasbord. I do not know where to start, but I will be
succinct.
The member talked about the budget in Ontario, corporate income
taxes and their impact on trade, et cetera. Has the member
actually had a chance to read the Ontario budget or budget 2000
of the federal government? Budget 2000 of the federal government
reduced the general corporate tax rate from 28% to 21% or seven
percentage points.
A few months later the Ontario government has come along and made
similar reductions in the corporate tax rate. I applaud the
Ontario government for following the lead of the federal
government.
1645
In fact, the member opposite talked about how Canadian companies
are not competitive. He cited Ontario. I can tell the hon.
member that when these corporate tax reductions are fully
implemented, the combined federal and Ontario corporate tax rate
will be significantly below the tax rates in that party's sacred
cow, the United States, and in the United Kingdom, two
jurisdictions that the member for Calgary East cited.
I am wondering if the hon. member has had a chance to actually
read the Ontario budget and to read budget 2000 of the federal
government and if he would reconsider the conclusion he reached
earlier, because I think it clearly negates what he said earlier.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member
raised this question. Yes, the press release on the Ontario
budget talks about reducing the corporate income tax. I did read
about it.
I ask the member, aside from the corporate income tax, what
about the payroll taxes? The federal government just increased
the CPP premiums. How much money is it taking on the Canada
pension plan because of the government's mismanagement? With the
increase in the Canada pension plan premiums, the federal
government is taking away the money. Look at the EI surplus. The
government could reduce the tax burden on the corporations making
them more competitive. Again it is the numbers game my colleagues
on the other side like to play, but which at the end of the day
does not result in what the corporations are looking for.
It is critically important that we say what is right. In our
view, the budget does not create the environment required for
Canadian corporations and businesses. It does not give the
working Canadians the tax reductions that are needed.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments
immensely.
There are a couple of things he alluded to in his speech. One
of them was constituents' complaints. The leading one I get is
when they deal with Revenue Canada on GST and revenue taxation.
I wonder if he would like to outline a little bit more on that.
He also alluded to the private member's bill which is almost a
taxpayers' bill of rights and provides for an ombudsman for
people to call. To whom do we go? I try to work out things for
my constituents. In dealing with the revenue minister, the
finance minister, the Prime Minister and so on, we seem to get
pushed around and around and really do not get substantive
answers to a lot of our concerns. Would the hon. member care to
comment?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
my colleague for bringing forward a very good point of view.
Every member of parliament sitting over here knows that the
number of complaints against the federal government and Revenue
Canada has skyrocketed in our offices. The majority of the
complaints somehow seem to get settled after we get involved and
we wonder why. Why can the government and Revenue Canada not
just settle these problems? Why do they make Canadian taxpayers
go through the pain and suffering and time wasting procedures?
The majority of complaints are that the laws that have been made
by the government are so weak that they can be interpreted by the
bureaucrats in any direction they want. One goes in one
direction and one goes in another direction. One will accept it
and one will not accept it. There is inconsistency. Where can
people go? That is why my colleague has brought in the Canadian
taxpayers' bill of rights. At least the people will have
somebody to complain to about what is happening. Maybe then the
government will listen.
1650
I am surprised that the members of parliament on the government
side will not tell their ministers or the bureaucrats what they
are hearing from their constituents.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, my colleague was talking earlier about
international trade.
I would like to go back about 40 or 50 years when Japan was just
starting out and when the image of made in Japan was not a
particularly good item. However through progressive governments
that have been favourable to industry, through productivity,
individual work ethics, some of that productivity in Japan is now
some of the best in the world.
We have seen that go from Japan to Korea to Taiwan, a similar
move of where economies start at the low end but through
progressive governments that are favourable to industry, they end
up doing particularly well on the international market. These
are the markets with which we have to compete. We will be
competing with China over the next several decades. That will be
an absolute workhorse of productivity and an economy that works.
My impression is that Canada is just about at the opposite end.
The government is trying to penalize industry. It is not making
progressive taxation or legislation that works for industry. That
is my impression. I ask my colleague do we seem to be on the
wrong side of this issue?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, at the end of the day
what concerns me is whether this new century will be the century
of missed opportunity for Canada. It will be if we do not
address the fundamentals in creating the economic environment for
business to thrive.
My colleague alluded to Japan and other Asian tigers. They
became tigers because they recognized the importance of
international trade and of a freer market and creating an
environment for business to thrive. I accompanied the Minister
for International Trade to Latin America which is doing the same
thing.
The question is will this century become the century of missed
opportunities for Canada? I hope not.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to enter the debate on the
income tax amendments. It may interest those watching in the
wonderful world of CPAC to know what it is we are actually
debating here this afternoon.
I was talking to a lady at a trade fair a couple of weeks ago.
We have these trade fairs out west. I stood all day and listened
to people about their concerns. Among their concerns definitely
with tax day looming was the whole situation of taxes. This one
lady said she always watched CPAC. I asked her if she had any
other problems. She was a very delightful lady.
I want to bring to the attention of everyone in the House, as
well as to those who are watching via the electronic medium, that
we are debating Bill C-25. We have a tendency here, and the
parliamentary secretary will agree, to bring all these things
together. Even in his questions he was talking about budget 2000
which the Minister of Finance brought down several months ago.
However, this bill is one which is now over a year old. I think
people should know that. We are finally getting around to
implementing measures that were introduced in budget 1999 some 13
or 14 months ago. It is really quite ridiculous.
1655
Furthermore, this bill also covers two ministries. There are
several amendments to acts which are under the co-ordination of
the Minister of National Revenue and then others for the Minister
of Finance. This is an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the
Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999. We are
really doing catch up here and I do not mean that in the sense of
something we put on our fries.
I would like to also point out some of the individual topics
that are covered and make little comments about them. One of the
measures in the bill is that the tax credits for individuals, the
basic amounts and spousal amounts, are to be increased and the
amounts are specified. This is a lame halfway measure the
government introduced last year to begin to index the tax system.
Bracket creep has been a real problem. The government just loves
to crow now about the fact that it has ended bracket creep. We
have been calling for that for six years. For six years we have
been saying to index all of the provisions of the Income Tax Act,
particularly the basic exemptions so that people do not have a
hidden increase in taxes every year. Finally last year the
government started to do something about it and it took further
measures this year.
After my little lecture speaking about last year's budget I will
mention about this year's budget. Now the government has said it
will restore full indexation. While I would like to put my hands
together to applaud that, the government missed because in the
last six years it has used bracket creep to ratchet up the amount
Canadian taxpayers pay, to the tune of around $40 billion a year
more tax revenue since the Liberals took office. That is since
1993. The Liberals have ratcheted up the income tax revenue over
that time and now they say, “Are we not wonderful? We are now
going to keep it there”. We were at a lower level; the
government allowed it to go up and now says it will no longer
increase it.
By the way, since I was a teacher and an instructor for 31 years
I have the habit of showing graphs from the point of view of the
people watching me. When I raise my hand I presume that people
will see a blackboard on which I am drawing a graph and they are
looking at it and I am sort of behind it. It is a skill I wish I
could use here. I would love to have graphics, charts, overhead
projectors and animated graphs using a computer. We would be
able to communicate so much better.
The point I am making is a very important one. By lack of
indexation over the last six years since the government took
office, it has moved the basic rates up. Now it says it will
increase the rates no further. As my colleague from Medicine Hat
mentioned in his very fine speech, it is now claiming as taxes
have been going up due to bracket creep, had the government not
ended it in this year's budget it would keep on going.
The government is saying that based on what those rates would be
in the next five years, it would be collecting a whole bunch of
dollars but now it will not collect them and therefore the
government will call that a tax cut and that will make everyone
feel good. The fact is it has been a huge tax increase from the
1993 level to the 1999 level when the government started reducing
the increase. Now it claims the level is flat. Let us hope the
government keeps it that way.
There is the elimination of an individual surtax. We promoted
and proposed that both the 3% and the 5% surtaxes be eliminated.
1700
In the 1999 budget the Liberals undertook to eliminate the 3%
last year, and I say great. I guess we should give them credit
when credit is due. An income splitting tax is included in this
legislation. It is rather interesting. While they talk about
cutting taxes, here is one where they arrange to tax mostly young
people. A tax is added to the earnings of a person living in a
home with his or her parents. Those earnings are added to the
income of the parent claiming an exemption. They introduced a
tax on passive income. It is a tax increase no matter which way
we slice it.
One could argue that it is only fair. Why should one person be
able to earn an income and have to pay tax on it and the other
one not? There is an element of fairness, but the fact of the
matter is that they drew into the tax rolls individuals who were
not there before.
The bill addresses a number of other issues. One I found
particularly interesting was the one on communal organizations.
There are a number of such organizations. We certainly have them
in the west. I have several of them in my riding as a matter of
fact. Instead of individuals owning farms there are communes.
They are very successful farmers but do not own the land as
individuals. Instead they all live on it. Actually they are
delightful.
If any of my colleagues end up in western Canada and have an
opportunity to visit one of the Hutterian Brethren communes it
will be quite an experience. All the young people are taught to
work. They all participate in the task of putting bread and
butter on the table. They have animals. They are also excellent
grain farmers and so on.
The particular measure provides that in order to compute the
taxable income of communes they can apply the basic exemptions of
all individuals who are part of the communes. This seems fair. I
do not think there is anything patently wrong with it. I am not
going to criticize it because I think it is fair.
Let us say that 50 people are making their living from a farm.
If they all owned little pieces of land they could all claim
their basic exemptions. None of them can claim personal incomes.
They do not operate that way. They all live together. They
share their food. They share their accommodations and so on. The
costs are paid by the commune. To apply the collective
exemptions of all of them to their income is a fair situation.
However it makes me think of a shortcoming that I often think
about, particularly with respect parents who choose to have one
of them stay at home and look after the children. That is also a
form of commune. Only one parent is earning an income and the
other parent and the children are dependants. Yet the government
has never seen fit to apply a basic exemption for those members
of the family who are not making an income. They always have a
reduced exemption.
In our solution 17 we have proposed this in various income tax
projections over the last number of years. We have been quite
consistent in this regard. Both parents should enjoy the same
basic exemption. There should not be a differential. Our
solution 17 does the same thing. Whether it is a one income or a
two income family it matters not. Each adult in the family would
be eligible for a $10,000 basic exemption.
1705
If they recognize the principle for communes of 50, I invite
them to recognize and apply the principle to a commune of two: a
mom and a dad looking after their children. Let us have a fair
tax system so that we stop bleeding families dry and making it so
difficult for them to make ends meet.
There are a number of other issues in the bill. I will skip
right to the last one and make a comment on the bill before I say
some general things. The last one has to do with income taxes
related to the hepatitis C trust. We will remember that the
Liberals were hammered for the fact that they wee very selective
in whom they chose to give compensation. In the rules that were
set up, if a trust is set up and it earns interest that interest
should be taxable. They are talking about taxable income as a
result of interest from these trusts.
Two days ago young Joey Haché was here again. He is one of the
young fellows who has been highlighting the whole hepatitis C
issue. So far we find that the bulk of the money paid out under
that program has been to lawyers. The victims of the hepatitis C
scandal at this stage are still mostly struggling to get
compensation to reach them.
I would like to say a few things in general about taxes. It is
interesting that the decisions we make in life are based on our
perception of facts. They are also usually based on certain
assumptions. Assumptions are sometimes a little different from
facts because what we are doing is saying if we do this, then
this is likely to happen. Perhaps it is not 100% predictable. It
is a non-repeatable experiment in many cases.
For example, if I throw a glass of water out of a 12 storey
building, chances are pretty good that when it hits the ground
the glass will break. If it actually breaks I cannot repeat the
experiment of throwing it to see whether it will break a second
time. It is a non-repeatable experiment.
That is the case with some economic assumptions. We often hear
from the government in its budgetary policy that it is creating
jobs. It keeps talking about this, but no one ever admits on the
other side that for every job it creates it is probably killing
1.1 jobs. Another way of putting that would be to say that for
every 10 jobs it creates, it is killing 11. The reason is very
simple. Canadian families are taxed to death. With all three
levels of government most Canadians will end up having half of
their income confiscated from them.
I thought of something last week during the Easter recess. I
noticed that my garage roof was leaking. That is unfortunate
because the water falls on to the car and because it is a tar
roof it marks the car. I thought of the money I pay in taxes to
help create jobs building a fountain in Shawinigan. If I could
have my taxes reduced I would have enough money to phone the
roofer and ask him to come and fix my roof. He would have a job
for a day. We know how much mismanagement and mishandling there
has been of government funds. The boondoggle has become quite a
large issue in the country.
The fact of the matter is that I have had this idea for many
years. When we take money away from people who have earned it,
we are not creating new jobs. We are moving the jobs. That is
what we are doing. If we take the overhead costs of that
process, the cost of collecting the taxes and the whole
bureaucracy of distributing the money, we recognize that maybe my
ratio of 11 to 10 is wrong. It is a number I have pulled out of
the sky. Maybe it is 15.
Perhaps for every 10 jobs the government claims it creates
through grants and contributions, the government is killing 15
jobs in the economy. I do not know what the number is. Perhaps
studies have been done that give us that information, but I have
an idea that is a safe assumption.
1710
I would much rather leave more money in the hands of the people
who earned it and have them create the jobs by having the roof
fixed or by making a new business investment which would directly
hire people. To me the marketplace is a much better creator of
jobs than the temporary jobs created by a handout government,
especially at election time when we see these handouts peaking.
We are in May 2000 debating the budget brought down on February
16, 1999, well over a year ago. Most of these things have
actually already been collected. That is quite an issue.
We have an increasing lack of respect for the taxation
collection agencies in the country. More and more people are
beginning to question the legality of paying taxes and all these
things. I do believe in law and order and all that, and I really
do not think the so-called anti-tax people who claim that it is
unconstitutional to collect taxes are right. Even if they were,
I would still like to have a tax regime that works. I want to
maintain the structure of solid government, such as we have in
this country, but not with excessive taxes. When we behave this
way we build a stronger case for them to reject our tax system.
There are a number of items for which the people have already
filled in their forms. They have filed their taxes on this
basis. Strictly speaking, we have not yet passed the orders into
law. Those people who claim that this is not constitutional or
not legal could probably win in the supreme court. I hate to say
that, but they probably could because the court would have to
rule that it would be illegal for the government to collect the
tax or in some cases to make an exemption which had not yet been
passed into law. I think that is regrettable.
The government should make sure when it has a budget that it
deals forthwith in implementing the provisions of the new budget
so that people can have confidence that what they are being asked
to do is legal. I regret that my time is up because I could
speak for hours on the whole issue of taxation.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member
for Elk Island finally get to budget 1999, but in his preamble he
talked extensively about the reindexation of the income tax
system which occurred in budget 2000.
The hon. member talked about the flat tax. People understand
that the flat tax or solution 17 is not a progressive tax. In
other words, it moves the tax burden from high income Canadians
to middle income Canadians. For example, a single taxpayer
earning $30,000 would receive a tax reduction of 12% while a
similar taxpayer earning $200,000 would receive a tax cut of 39%.
We know it is not progressive but we hear about the simplicity
where people will fill in a form with their income and they will
just take 17%. I heard the member talk about various deductions.
1715
I do not have the information on solution 17. Under solution 17
will there be various deductions and tax credits? For example
right now under our tax system we have deductions for RRSP
contributions, pension contributions, charitable donations,
medical expenses over a certain amount, union dues, professional
fees and special tax considerations for people with disabilities.
Will items of that nature still apply under solution 17 or will
it just be a matter of taking one's income and applying a
percentage?
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I need to congratulate the
parliamentary secretary. That is such a super question. He could
not have asked a better question.
There is this myth going around that the single rate tax, which
is different from the flat tax, is a tax break for the rich. It
is not. It is an equalization of the tax burden.
The basic exemptions are increased dramatically. We are going to
give a percentage tax cut indeed to the average Canadian
taxpayer. However the people who benefit the most are the
families. For example a mom and a dad and two kids who earn
$26,000, I do not have the numbers right at my fingertips on how
much tax they would pay under the Liberal government but whatever
it is, we are giving them a 100% tax break. Every tax dollar that
they have paid they now will no longer have to pay. They get off
the tax rolls completely because there is a $10,000 basic
exemption for each of the adults and $3,000 for each of the two
children which is $6,000. That is $26,000 they earn before they
pay a single penny of tax. They get a 100% tax break.
I am not going to apologize for the fact that even those who are
making more money also get a tax break. It is time for us to
stop punishing people who earn money in this country.
If a person is making $50,000 or $60,000, and if they earn an
extra $5,000, I can see where we are going to tax them on that
extra income. However I reject the hypothesis that as they earn
more we have to take a higher and higher proportion of it because
that totally stifles economic growth and it kills the enthusiasm
and joy of our citizens. If they earn $10,000, let them pay twice
as much more tax as the ones that earn $5,000 more. I am talking
about after those basic exemptions.
The other question the member asked had to do with the
deductions from taxable income for all of the other expenditures.
The short answer is that most of the deductions that are in
place now would still remain in place. It is not a flat tax per
se. It is a single rate tax. It simply means that there is a
certain level on which earners pay no tax and after that it is
17% on every additional dollar after the basic exemptions. They
still will be able to apply, for example, their deductions for
charitable donations and others.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, my colleague was giving some very enlightening
comments on our 17% tax proposal. I want him to carry on a bit
to clarify and enlighten all of us here and the viewing audience
as well.
Let us keep this real simple and use the example of a husband
and wife with no kids on the scene. I have a brother and his
wife who are in that situation. If they had an income of $40,000
and they each had this $10,000 exemption, in effect they are
going to be paying 17% tax on that additional $20,000. Am I
correct in understanding that they are not going to be paying 17%
on that second $20,000, from $20,000 to $40,000? At that level
they will not be paying 17%. It would be much less. In fact one
would have to have a fairly good wage before one would be paying
anywhere close to that actual 17%.
1720
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, again it depends very much on
the individual situation. Let us talk of two adults, a husband
and a wife, who earn $20,000 between them. If they have no
deductions, then they would pay 17% on $20,000 which would be
$3,400. That would be their total tax but the effective rate for
them would actually be 8.5%.
The beauty of this tax system is that for each incremental or
marginal increase in one's income, the tax is linear. I am
speaking as a mathematician. It does not go up exponentially as
it does with the Liberal scheme where if we make more and more
the Liberals take a higher and higher percentage of it. We
propose to take a constant percentage. Therefore, it is a
truly—and what is the opposite of a regressive tax system—a
progressive tax system. Those people who make $20,000 would pay
zero. As the income goes up, the total amount that is paid in
taxation goes up in a really nice continual curve. It does not
have big leaps.
We hear these horror stories about people who got a raise or
overtime pay but had less on their paycheques than if they had
not worked that extra time. They got into a higher bracket.
That will never happen with our system because it is a linear
system.
It was a very good question and I appreciated the opportunity to
answer it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, one other thing my colleague from Elk Island did not
mention is the impact of the underground economy on our tax
system. Many people in the country feel our tax system is so
unfair that they actually hide income. They put it under the
table. That is part of this fair 17% solution which very few of
my colleagues across the way seem to understand. If people feel
the tax system is fair, they are far less likely to go through
the process of hiding their income. Could my colleague comment on
that?
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, I am no different from other
members of parliament. I am sure everyone in the House who is
willing to admit it has heard stories and knows of some cases
firsthand, as I do, of individuals who quote two prices to do
something, for example to fix the roof. There is a price if they
are paid cash and a price if they have to issue a tax receipt.
Yes, I think that is deplorable. It is really wrong for an
individual to avoid the tax system. What he or she should do is
help to elect a Canadian Alliance government to fix the tax
system. Until that happens, people should really comply.
At any rate the problem is huge. I remember way back in 1993
when the Liberals were first elected and the Conservatives had
been in power. Even then, because of the GST, it was stated that
probably all of the deficit, which was estimated to be around $40
billion but it turned out to be larger, but $40 billion a year of
government revenue was lost because of the underground economy.
We never know exactly how much it is because the people who do
not comply are the ones that are not tracked.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few points on the record in
the five minutes that remain.
It is interesting to look across the way. It is almost a state
of denial. Look at where 40 years of successive tax and spend
governments have put us. I will show myself as being a little
long in the tooth, but I remember in the 1950s when we went to
the United States and put a dollar on the table, we got $1.12
back or $1.09. The Canadian dollar was worth more than the
American dollar but today it is below 67 cents.
That did not happen by osmosis; it happened through government
policies.
1725
We consistently get the denial from across the way “Well, we
always look at our pals in the United States. It is the United
States that we always look to”. In some ways we do, because the
Americans have the luxury of an economy that is going far faster,
in multiples of what ours is doing.
If we have to make a comparison, we do not have to go down to
the United States. We just have to compare my home province of
British Columbia with its next door neighbour Alberta to see what
different taxation policies can do. We not only have the Liberal
government to contend with but we also have the provincial NDP
government and British Columbia has been put on its knees with
the cumulative effect of the two. Compare that to Alberta which
basically has no sales tax and has a very envious record. Again,
that is through public policy, policies of successive governments
that have gone in the direction of building the economy, not
knocking it down.
It is not just a simplistic answer. We have interprovincial
trade barriers, for example. We have talked about it. It is a
huge cauldron. In Ontario and Quebec it is a one-way street with
workers going across one way but it is not reciprocal the other
way. That is a simple example of the trade barriers in one
province not being the same in others. It goes right across the
country.
What about our debt? I started out by saying our dollar was
$1.12 compared to a U.S. dollar 50 years ago, and it is now down
to 67 cents. Back in those days we had a very tiny debt. The
reason our dollar is down on its knees is the huge burden. The
world markets are looking at Canada and saying that with this
huge debt we have hanging over us, they do not have faith in our
economy and they do not have faith in our dollar.
Canadians would like the government to address that. For
example, the U.S. plans to pay off its debt in about 13 years.
Australia plans to do it in about three years. With the
forecasting from the finance minister, in Canada it is something
like 190 years at the present rate. There is no political will
to move forward to attack that debt so that we can bring the
economy forward.
It is the cumulative effect of taxes, of debt and of legislation
that does not favour business. In fact, it penalizes business.
It penalizes. It is as if it is a crime in this country to make
a buck. This is with tongue in cheek but basically with the
Liberal policy, the simple tax form in part A asks how much
money we made and part B says to send it in. That is about
where this government has been going.
Canadians are on their knees. They are taxed not only federally,
but in some cases we have a provincial regime that does not work,
and the municipalities as well. This country needs to get its tax
burden across the board under control. All levels of government
have to do that.
We have seen other countries that we have to compete with. I
mentioned earlier in a question Japan, Taiwan and now China.
These are countries that started off at the low end but through
the years and with progressive government policies that favour
industry and productivity have moved forward. These are the
economies we as Canadians have to deal with.
I am running out of time, so I will wind up. On the tax issue,
if there is just one message I wish the government would really
listen to, it is that we need to lower taxes at all levels.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have to interrupt
the hon. member at this time. The next time the bill is brought
before the House, the hon. member will have about 14 minutes
remaining.
[Translation]
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[Translation]
OFFICE OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
introduce amendments to Part III of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act so that the Office of the Correctional
Investigator would report directly to Parliament and that its
recommendations would be binding rather than simple
recommendations.
She said: Madam Speaker, Motion M-228, which I am putting before
the House today, deals with Part III of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, which deals with the correctional
investigator.
The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is now being
reviewed by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights. While the conditional release procedure seems
to capture the interest of the general public and of members of
the House, the same is not true of Part III of the act, which
deals with the correctional investigator. In my opinion, this is
a very important part of the act.
The subcommittee reviewing the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act will propose certain improvements to the Office of
the Correctional Investigator. These improvements are acceptable,
but I believe they are not sufficient to give the correctional
investigator the powers he should have, given the importance of
his functions.
That is why I have decided to draw the government's attention to
that part of the act. I call upon the government to give more
powers to the Office of the Correctional Investigator and to
introduce the necessary amendments. Allow me to explain why the
government should seriously consider my motion and the proposals
it contains.
First, I think it is important to remind the House that,
as stated in section 3, the purpose of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act is, and I quote:
—the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by (a)
carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and
humane custody and supervision of offenders; and (b) assisting
the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the
community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of
programs in penitentiaries and in the community.
It is the responsibility of the Correctional Service of Canada
to look after the custody of offenders and set up programs that
contribute to their rehabilitation and successful reintegration
into the community. The correctional service must also prepare
inmates for their release and supervise conditional and statutory
releases, as well as the long term supervision of some offenders.
The commissioner of corrections has the control and management
of the service and all matters connected with the service. The
commissioner reports to the minister, in this case, the Solicitor
General of Canada.
Under the act, the correctional investigator conducts
investigations into the problems of offenders related to
decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the commissioner
or any person under the control and management of the
commissioner that affect inmates.
I should be noted that the reasons for complaints are many. It
could be a transfer or something to do with the special handling
unit, access to rehabilitation programs, double bunking, health
care and many others.
The main function of the correctional investigator is to conduct
investigations and settle the complaints of each offender. The
correctional investigator may conduct an investigation either on
his own initiative or following a complaint by an inmate or a
request by the minister.
Unfounded or inappropriate decisions might compromise chances of
success of rehabilitation and, in the longer term, they might
also affect the public's security.
After having conducted an investigation, if the correctional
investigator determines that there actually is a problem
regarding one or more offenders, he must submit a report to the
commissioner. The correctional investigator adds to his report a
motivated opinion if he considers that the commissioner has
contravened the law or an established guideline or rendered an
unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or unduly discriminatory
decision. He will also give a motivated opinion if the
commissioner exercised his discretionary power for improper
purposes, irrelevant reasons or no reason.
1735
The correctional investigator must also include in his report
the recommendations he deems appropriate and which are relevant
to complaints from inmates. These recommendations ensure that
systemic concerns within penitentiaries are dealt with properly.
For instance, the correctional investigator has jurisdiction
over special detention units, grievance procedure, case
preparation, access to rehabilitation programs, double bunking,
as I mentioned, transfers, the use of force, injuries to inmates,
and other matters.
As members can see, the investigator has important duties and he
must deal with both sensitive and complicated matters. As
mentioned in his departmental performance report for the period
ending March 31, 1999, and I quote:
The Office aims to assure the Canadian public that the federal
correctional system is managed efficiently, equitably and fairly.
Unfortunately, the recommendations or findings of the
correctional investigator following an investigation are not
binding on the commissioner of corrections. With the current
legislation, when the commissioner of corrections does not take
action within a reasonable time after the correctional
investigator has presented his report, the latter may inform the
solicitor general of the situation and provide him with the
information originally provided to the commissioner.
Nothing in the act says that the minister must act on the advice
of the correctional investigator. The investigator must submit
annually a report of the activities of his office to the
solicitor general, who introduces it in the two houses of
parliament.
Clearly, the decision-making power of the correctional
investigator is quite limited.
Furthermore, the appointment process does not guarantee total
independence or neutrality. Indeed, the correctional
investigator is presently appointed by the governor in council.
In other words, the minister is his boss.
Considering the importance of the correctional investigator's
role, I believe that changes are in order and that the
government must act. Therefore, I submit that, to start with,
the government must amend the act to make the correctional
investigator accountable to parliament.
That means that he would be appointed by parliament. In legal
terms, the provision could read something like this: the
incumbent shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal
after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate
and the House of Commons.
Under this appointment process, the appointee shall report to
parliament and, at the end of each year, submit an activity
report. This report may include recommendations regarding the
changes in legislation that are deemed desirable.
Once tabled, this activity report is referred to a committee
designated or established by parliament pursuant to the act to
monitor the enforcement of the act and its regulations. This
designated committee also oversees the implementation of the
reports tabled by the person responsible.
I believe that this change in the correctional investigator
appointment process would really improve the role of the
investigator, who would be accountable to parliament, which would
give the function a more independent and impartial status than it
currently has.
Some recommendations of the correctional investigator could be
implemented at this level by the committee responsible for
monitoring the enforcement of the act. The commissioner of
official languages and the information commissioner are two
examples of people who are accountable to parliament.
Because of his or her position, the correctional investigator
can identify weaknesses in the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and see how it impacts on the prisoners and their
rehabilitation. Any improvement of the status of the correctional
investigator is likely to improve the very complex system
provided for in the act. For these reasons, this change in the
appointment process of the correctional investigator is
desirable.
1740
While the government ought to do more, this, in my opinion, is
the first change that should be made to this act. Genuine
decision making power must be given to the correctional
investigator by making his recommendations binding.
As we have seen, at present, the commissioner is not bound by
the recommendations made to him by the correctional investigator
after a prisoner's complaint has been investigated. The only
recourse, as the case may be, that the correctional investigator
has to ensure his conclusions are acted on is to inform the
solicitor general that the commissioner failed to act.
Several avenues could be explored by the government to ensure
that the recommendations of the correctional investigator are
binding. The government could simply change the existing
legislation so as to direct the commissioner to follow the
recommendations of the correctional investigator.
Between April 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999, the correctional
investigator received 4,529 complaints made by inmates or on
their behalf. The correctional investigator's workload is
considerable. Moreover, the correctional investigator must make
sure that custodial provisions are appropriate and look after
the rehabilitation of inmates, while ensuring public safety.
That is why I encourage the government to introduce amendments
to the appointment process, so as to give the correctional
investigator an independent status, as I said earlier.
I also say to the government it should introduce amendments to
the legislation in order to give some real authority to the
correctional investigator. In fact, the correctional
investigator knows that I have moved this motion in the House
today and he is, in his own words, totally in agreement with
this motion.
I want to stress that this motion is absolutely non-partisan. I
believe that all parties in the House stand to benefit from the
correctional investigator reporting directly to parliament. We
want to make sure that this function is real, efficient and
independent. I believe this concerns us all as
parliamentarians, whatever our political allegiance.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not
selected the motion I am submitting to the House this evening as
a votable item, even if the issue is of primary importance. I
think it is unfortunate that we cannot vote on such a serious
issue. In spite of that, I have addressed the House on the
subject, and other members may do so for a total of one hour.
What is the use of debating for one hour if the members will
never have the opportunity to vote on the issue? My speech
tonight will certainly convince several members of the validity
of my motion, but no concrete measure will be taken following
the debate.
I am tempted to say that we are wasting time and precious
resources.
Members of parliament work very hard to introduce motions and
bills on issues affecting the general public. That is why all
members should have the opportunity to vote on such initiatives.
The introduction of motions and bills by private members allows
them to speak for their constituents. It is also an opportunity
for other members to express the views of their constituents on
the issues before the House. To deny members the possibility to
vote on these initiatives is to withdraw a basic vehicle for
action in our democratic system.
Therefore, I think that out of respect for the voters and for
the position of members of parliament, the issues submitted by
private members to the House should all be votable items. Do
members not believe that talking for the sake of talking is a
waste of taxpayers' money? No, that is not why we were elected. I
think that the job members of parliament do is a serious one and
the motions and bills they introduce should be treated as such.
I admit that I am a little embarrassed to be doing this tonight.
I know that I am not alone in this regard. As a matter of fact
several other hon. members already expressed their views on
votable items in 1996, before the subcommittee on private
members' business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs.
1745
Many of us thought that there were not enough votable bills and
motions in spite of the importance of the issues. Many also
thought that all the bills and motions by private members should
be voted on.
Accordingly, I urge all hon. members who share this view to keep
on working to change the way things are done in the House.
Furthermore, the subcommittee I mentioned recently sent a
questionnaire concerning Private Members' Business, and I hope
all hon. members take the opportunity to express their view on
this matter.
If it is not the case—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member but her time is up.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to finish my
speech. There are only two sentences left.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying
that if members have not yet taken advantage of the fact that
they are being consulted on whether they want all motions and
bills to be made votable, I invite them to do so.
Together, we should succeed in changing this practice that leads
us nowhere.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we have before us Motion M-228,
which deals with the office of the correctional investigator.
This motion asks the government to introduce legislative
amendments to have the correctional investigator report to
parliament directly, and not through the solicitor general, as
is the case now.
[English]
For reasons which I will explain in greater detail, I simply
cannot support this motion.
It seems that the criminal justice system has held a place of
prominence in parliament in recent months. The Minister of
Justice has initiated action in the area of youth justice. Her
extensive proposals are still being considered by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In the last session,
among other initiatives, she oversaw the passage of significant
additions to victims rights legislation.
The solicitor general has done his share of legislative reform
by extending the protection of young Canadians from sexual
predators with amendments to the Criminal Records Act, which has
just received royal assent.
[Translation]
Our justice system is being updated practically on a continual
basis. In fact, one could consider that correctional reform was
undertaken when the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act were
replaced by the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act that
was passed in 1992. It is in that new act that the Office of the
Correctional Investigator was established.
In establishing that office through legislation, the government
reinforced the right of inmates to have access to a grievance
process, while ensuring better protection of their right to be
treated in a fair and humanitarian manner.
[English]
We can take pride in our worldwide reputation for maintaining a
correctional system which acts fairly while pursuing its primary
goal of public protection. I fear, however, that Motion No. 228
would change our law in ways not envisaged or intended by those
who drafted, debated and later amended legislation which became
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as we know it today.
1750
Motion M-228 asks us to reconsider an aspect of the office of
the correctional investigator that could have been included in
the 1992 legislative package, an item that was indeed proposed by
some witnesses and committee members during the hearings before
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[Translation]
But the proposal was rejected, and it is no more desirable today
than it was then.
I will point out that we are expecting the report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights dealing with the
most recent review of the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act.
[English]
The solicitor general has said that he looks forward to
receiving the recommendations of the subcommittee, and I am
certain that he will consider those recommendations very
carefully.
Motion No. 228, however, proposes a change to this act, and a
change which I cannot support.
[Translation]
In the time I have left, I will try to shed some light on the
way the Office of the Correctional Investigator currently reports
and explain why this proposal is not judicious.
The solicitor general is responsible for the federal
correctional agencies, of which there are two: the Correctional
Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.
The minister is accountable to parliament, thus to the Canadian
public; moreover, he has the mandate to make the necessary
changes—when they are called for—to the policies and practices
of these agencies.
When the correctional investigator reports to the minister, as
is the case now, he brings his concerns directly to the attention
of the system's responsibility centre. If the report contains
recommendations that it would be appropriate to implement, the
solicitor general encourages the government to take the necessary
measures accordingly.
Their is no chance these reports will get lost along the way, or
shelved as they say, because not only does this series of
legislative measures make it mandatory for the solicitor general
to present such a report, but also the act categorically states
that it must be tabled in parliament by the solicitor general
within 90 days. In short, the correctional agencies are
independently monitored and reports must be submitted.
And besides, there is another important element, of course.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which the
author of the motion is a member, may examine, at its own
discretion, the annual reports and special reports of the
correctional investigator.
Questions may be asked about the follow-up given to
recommendations made by the investigator, either in his annual
report or in his special reports. Questions may also be asked
about the way complaints lodged by inmates have been dealt with.
Therefore today's motion is totally redundant.
[English]
We are living in times of tremendous change. You, Madam
Speaker, and all of my colleagues are well aware that change is
experienced no less by the criminal justice system than it is by
any other institution in our society.
[Translation]
Obviously, the last decade has seen a great deal of activity in
the area of criminal justice.
[English]
Is our justice system working? Is it indeed protecting our most
vulnerable citizens? Are our actions in line with our speech in
terms of making the safety of Canadians of paramount concern to
the Government of Canada?
[Translation]
Our government was well prepared to deal with those
difficulties. I would add that Canadians are not asking us to
allow inmates to submit their problems directly to the House.
The rights of offenders imprisoned or on conditional release are
protected by the law and by international codes of ethics, of
which Canada is a signatory. Besides, the rights of individuals
living under the authority of the correctional system are
protected by legislative provisions on human rights, as well as
by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1755
I sincerely do not believe that the motion moved—in all good
faith—by my colleague, who is a hard worker, will improve those
protections in any way.
Of course, what interests me most is that this proposal can in
no way guarantee better protection of the public.
Therefore, since this motion can neither improve protection of
the public nor increase the public's confidence in the
correctional system, this motion is useless, in my opinion.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to enter the debate on this justice issue
brought forward by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint Hubert.
We are discussing once again the issue of justice and
sentencing. I vacillate back and forth between the whole concept
of holding people accountable for their actions in a meaningful
way while at the same time upholding a very important principle
in which I strongly believe. The principle I am talking about is
our justice system, which in all aspects should be based on the
principle that it is the safety of law-abiding citizens which
should take pre-eminence in all cases. I also very firmly
believe that if the rights of a victim and the rights of an
accused collide, then the rights of the victim should take
precedence.
I think this motion was brought forth today out of a sense of
frustration with our justice system in Canada. I do not want to
particularly pick on the current Minister of Justice, since I do
not think the situation was substantially better under the
previous minister. The way the justice system works in Canada is
very seriously flawed. We have a minister who, unfortunately,
does not respond well to issues which are very important to
Canadians.
We have more than 500,000 names on petitions asking the
government to do something with respect to the possession of
child pornography. The Minister of Justice simply wrings her
hands and says “I cannot do anything”. Canadians do not
understand that. They do not like it and they have expressed
that to me.
I mentioned in an earlier speech today that I spent a number of
hours at trade fairs in two of the major centres in my riding in
the last couple of weeks. One of the issues that came up over
and over was the issue of child pornography. I can see my
colleague being motivated to bring forward her motion when the
minister does not respond to issues such as child pornography.
The member is really bypassing the minister with her motion.
At the present time the annual report of the correctional
investigator is tabled in the House by the minister. It is
required by statute that the report be tabled in the House so
that it will be available to all of us. Consequently, the
minister can sit on it and forget about it. There is never a
requirement to actually act on any of the recommendations. I can
understand the member's frustration.
I feel bad about this because I know this motion has come
forward from correct motivation. I wish the member had worded it
a little differently, because then I would have supported it
quite heartily. However, I have a real concern with a motion
which lets a correctional officer prepare a report with
recommendations that are binding on the House.
1800
When we actually so arrange our affairs, we are in danger that
parliament will not be supreme. We have already done that thanks
to former Prime Minister Trudeau who brought in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms with its overriding control over
future parliaments. We have lost our autonomy. We no longer
have a parliament that can pass a law based on the majority in a
democratic process either of our people or of our representatives
in the House.
If I am reading this motion right, the primary flaw that I see
is that the motion would further erode the supremacy of
parliament. I am sure the hon. member will correct me during her
last five minute speech if I am wrong.
The way I read it, the motion states, and I quote,
“recommendations would be binding rather than simple
recommendations”. It means that the recommendations made in
that report to parliament would not be debated or passed by the
House. If they were, there would be no choice but to adopt those
recommendations. I think that would be unwise.
Undoubtedly many of the recommendations would be valid and would
carry the support, but if there were recommendations that were
not supported by the majority of either our citizens or, by
projection, their representatives in this place, then we ought
not to allow yet another individual or small committee somewhere
out there, that is neither elected nor accountable, to dictate to
Canadians how the conditional system works. As I see it, that is
the most serious flaw in the motion.
I would, however, like to say that we need to seriously look at
the whole question of sentencing and we need to have better
feedback.
I happen to have a major institution located a few miles from
the boundary of my riding. Many of the people who work at that
institution live in my riding. They live in the towns of Fort
Saskatchewan, Gibbons or Bon Accord. They work at that
institution and they express their concerns to me. Many of the
things that happen in Correctional Service Canada are not really
geared toward the protection of citizens they way they ought to
be.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this motion forward. I
certainly sympathize with her frustration with the system. We do
need to look at the way this reporting should be done. However,
it would have been better if she had moved a motion that said
that those recommendations must be dealt with in the House within
a certain length of time and that a subsequent vote on those
recommendations would be a free vote, as Private Members'
Business is. Perhaps that would have been a better way to
accomplish the goals she is seeking.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has five minutes to reply at this time, if
she so desires. She has the floor.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, following the comments I
made earlier about having one hour to debate a bill or a motion
that just dies after the hour is over, without even being voted
on, I have no further comments to make on my motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Since the motion was not selected as a votable item, this item
is dropped from the order paper.
It being 6.05 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.)