EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 125
CONTENTS
Thursday, September 24, 1998
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICES ORGANIZATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURAL DIVERSITY
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SYDNEY TAR PONDS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS MISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1415
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1425
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1430
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1435
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCRAPIE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1445
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1450
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONTREAL CONVENTION CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1500
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OBSERVANCE OF TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE ON REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-434. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANK OF CANADA ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-435. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
1510
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Age of Consent
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Refugees
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Highways
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gun Control
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1515
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-16. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1540
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1545
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1655
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-251. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1840
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1845
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
1040
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Parent |
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Mandela |
1055
1100
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gildas Molgat |
1120
1125
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 125
![](/web/20061116184530im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 24, 1998
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[English]
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICES ORGANIZATION
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin my statement may I say that you said it well this
morning on behalf of us all. Surely Nelson Mandela will take his
place among the greats of the 20th century.
I rise in the House to recognize two of my constituents who have
made their contributions to the 20th century. These two
individuals, Stan Judd and John Mackillop, have made
contributions through the Canadian Executive Services
Organization.
Stan Judd spent a month in Panama to help a company engaged in
the purchasing, classification and distribution of specialty
grains. Among other things, Mr. Judd designed a better cleaning
and classifying process, developed a new faster cooking grain and
designed effective packaging. Because of Mr. Judd, this company
expects to increase production, reduce costs and improve product
quality.
Mr. Mackillop went on assignment to Sri Lanka to assist in the
production of artificial limbs. He helped prepare study material
and training for a company.
Stan Judd and John Mackillop are to commended for their efforts.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are becoming increasingly aware that one of the keys
for a strong society is not more costly government programs but
respect and encouragement for the millions of committed parents
who are raising our next generation.
Not surprisingly, the studies show what we already intrinsically
know: a stable and loving family is a child's best hope. For
example, recent studies confirm that children raised by birth
parents in a stable relationship are significantly more likely to
graduate from high school and less likely to have behavioural
problems.
Increasingly though, academics, bureaucrats and social
do-gooders present themselves as the champions of the best
interests of children. What they seem to forget is that parents
have a natural authority.
Respecting the authority that both parents have and tangibly
encouraging the work that they do is one of the best long term
investments we can make.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the past two days national defence headquarters has been
celebrating the 75th anniversary of the department and the 30th
anniversary of headquarters.
As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, I am delighted that the public has had this
opportunity to learn more about the department and the men and
women who serve there.
Over the summer I had the distinct pleasure of being a guest
speaker at the annual meeting of the Ontario Regiment Veterans. I
was presented with a poem written by Charles Province that I
would like to share as a reminder of the supreme sacrifice made
by so many:
It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of
the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of
speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us
freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to
a fair trial.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves under the
flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the
protester to burn the flag.
* * *
[Translation]
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the invitation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the
ministers of culture of 19 countries met in Ottawa on June 29
and 30 to take part in a forum on the importance of supporting
national culture at this time of globalization and of promoting
co-operation to this end.
Among other things the meeting led to the formation of an
international ministerial network to promote and protect
cultural diversity and the establishment of a co-ordinating group
comprising Sweden, Mexico, Greece and Canada.
The 10 initiatives approved include one requesting the leaders
in broadcasting to promote television's cultural diversity and
co-operation with the Organization of American States in order to
develop a cultural plan.
The Canadian Conference on the Arts held a parallel forum on
culture and co-operation, with over 60 organizations in the arts,
culture and development sector participating. This shows
clearly—
The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.
* * *
1405
[English]
PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured and delighted to welcome a great man to
our nation's capital today, the President of South Africa, the
Hon. Nelson Mandela.
President Mandela is a living symbol of the power of the human
spirit and a true modern day hero. Nelson Mandela has fought and
stood by his strong beliefs in fundamental human rights, the
right to dignity, freedom and equality that we all cherish as
Canadians.
His courage to challenge the injustices of the oppressive system
of apartheid in South Africa cannot be understated. Like many
Canadians such as Sherona Hall and other ANC supporters, I spent
my youthful years in anti-apartheid support activities.
Today we are all bursting with pride as under President
Mandela's leadership South Africa is making a peaceful transition
into a democratic society that respects the rights of all its
citizens.
Nelson Mandela will go down in history as one of the stalwarts
of the 20th century.
Mr. Mandela, thank you for making South Africa and the world a
better place. Canadians are proud that today you walked among
us.
* * *
PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Canadian official opposition I ask the members of the House
of Commons and all Canadians from sea to sea to pay tribute to
the President of South Africa, Mr. Nelson Mandela.
Canadians supported Mr. Mandela's struggle against oppression
because Canadians believe in the equality of all people. We
believe in justice and accountability and we believe in the
fundamental freedoms for all people.
Now Canadians cheer on and support a renewed South Africa, a
South Africa that works to achieve the ideals of democracy,
equality and freedom, a South Africa that is a model for other
states in and beyond Africa. Canadians also support South Africa
as it reinvigorates its domestic democracy, as it reforms its
institutions of government and moves into the 21st century.
In short, Canada and South Africa have been close in the past
and will remain friends in the future. Today it is a great
honour to welcome Nelson Mandela and his wife and celebrate a
victory for freedom over oppression.
* * *
PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure today to be among those Canadians who welcome
Nelson Mandela here to our parliament. President Mandela's visit
gives us an opportunity to honour a remarkable man for his
lifetime struggle against racism and apartheid.
He has fathered a peaceful revolution, guided by his gentleness,
wisdom and strength. This remarkable legacy continues through
his dedication to helping the children and youth of South Africa.
The Government of Canada is proud to be a sponsor of the
“Mandela and the Children” event at the Skydome tomorrow.
Nelson Mandela will reach out to our young people and give them
an awareness of Canada's activities in South Africa.
This event will connect young people of Canada with the South
African youth in a common cause: the elimination of racism and
the promotion of human rights.
The struggle of this great leader encourages us all to reaffirm
our commitment to tolerance, equality and social justice.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to join with my colleagues in recognizing the
official visit of the President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela.
On the eve of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are honoured by the
presence of a true defender of human rights.
Nelson Mandela's actions, his very life, have marked not only
Africa, but indeed the entire world.
Through personal sacrifice, Mr. Mandela stands out as a true
statesman and as a beloved and respected political leader. He
will remain forever an example of a freedom fighter.
As others continue the fight for democracy, Mr. Mandela's
exemplary tenacity should give cause for reflection to those who
think that repression can silence people who, like President
Mandela himself, embody the courageous battle for fundamental
rights.
President Mandela, on behalf of the members of the Bloc
Quebecois and of all the people of Quebec, I thank you.
* * *
PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite
all my colleagues to applaud the government's initiative to
support President Mandela in his efforts to fight racial
discrimination in his country and internationally.
As we know, President Mandela is one of the most credible and
most respected world leaders in terms of the advancement of
social justice, and our country has recognized this yesterday by
making him a Companion of the Order of Canada.
1410
The Canadian government's support of the “Nelson Mandela
Children's Fund” campaign naturally fits in with our country's
tradition, a country that has been championing the cause of
peace and human rights around the world for years.
Our contribution to this initiative also gives an international
dimension to the annual national campaign against racism and
discrimination that the government and many Canadians have been
leading for the past nine years: the March 21 campaign.
[English]
As we move into the 21st century, we must work even more
diligently with the inspiration and spirit of one of the great
heroes of our history, Mr. Mandela, to eradicate all forms of
racism and discrimination in Canada and around the world.
* * *
NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
secretive organization of the government is making decisions
behind closed doors without public scrutiny.
The unelected National Capital Commission proposes to spend some
$5 billion on a questionable project affecting the city's tax
base.
Now we have learned that unelected NCC chairman Marcel Beaudry
pressured elected Ottawa city councillor Elisabeth Arnold. Mr.
Beaudry asked Councillor Arnold to withhold two recommendations
from a city draft report. The recommendations strongly object to
the destruction of the heritage buildings and the shrinkage of
downtown development the NCC's Metcalfe Street proposal would
cause.
We have advice for the National Capital Commission. Be
transparent and be accountable.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the marriage of
the sovereignists and the Reform Party has been a rocky one, to
say the least. Despite their vows, the honeymoon does not seem
to have lasted very long!
Now the Bloc is linking up with Mike Harris, while the Reform
Party is flirting with the likes of former PQ minister Rodrigue
Biron.
As well, there is division among the sovereignists on the
holding of a referendum. As recently as yesterday, Jacques
Parizeau again demonstrated that the Parti Quebecois did not
have the courage to be frank with Quebeckers as to whether or
not there will be a referendum.
The people of Quebec are nobody's fools; they are calling for
practical solutions to their problems and, as always, refuse to
swallow any old story the Bloc and the sovereignists try to sell
them.
* * *
[English]
SYDNEY TAR PONDS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is with both anger and sadness I address this House today.
A study released in Sydney found that the cancer rates there
were 16% higher than the national average and that numerous other
serious diseases and health problems are alarmingly high. These
results, shocking as they are, come as no surprise to the people
of my community. We have lived with them for a generation.
The people of Cape Breton mined the coal and made the steel that
built the railways that brought this nation together. Steel from
Sydney helped Canada and our allies in the second world war and
the first world war.
The people of my riding have paid a terrible price for their
nation. They have sacrificed both their lives and their health.
In return we are asking that this government take real and
immediate action and commit to the funding needed to clean up the
Sydney tar ponds before another generation of Cape Bretoners
suffers the same fate as the last. I ask this not only as a
representative of my people but as a Canadian.
* * *
BUSINESS MISSION
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past summer I had the privilege of leading a business mission to
the People's Republic of China. Included were representatives
from many sectors including waste management, trade consulting,
textiles, computers and local government.
We travelled to promote industry in my riding of Oak Ridges.
With a significant Asian population, we have an advantage in
dealing with the Chinese market. I was pleased to help
businesses from my riding to establish firm ties with one of our
largest trading partners.
On behalf of the mission, I would like to thank the member for
York West, the Minister for International Trade, for his
assistance.
Let me say that I was proud to follow up on the Prime Minister's
example and lead my own mini team Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, today we have
welcomed a true statesman among us. President Mandela is the
very incarnation of the word statesman. with his great vision,
integrity, and sense of what a state is all about.
The Progressive Conservative members are particularly delighted
with the visit of President Mandela.
1415
While they were in office, Prime Minister Mulroney and Minister
of External Affairs Joe Clark fought hard within the G-7
countries and the Commonwealth to put an end to apartheid in
South Africa.
They were strongly determined to put an end to human rights
violations on the international level, and under their direction
the Progressive Conservative government remained faithful to the
reputation Canada has gained for standing up to oppressive
regimes.
The visit by President Mandela bears witness to the strength of
that tradition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is stonewalling Canadians with
respect to his actions at the APEC summit. Police notes continue
to connect the Prime Minister with the suppression of student
protesters. Now an eye witness, who was the Prime Minister's
guest, claims that she saw him personally involved in directing
security activities. Canadians want the truth.
Will the government now revise its position that the Prime
Minister was never personally involved in police actions at the
APEC summit?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allegations referred to by the Leader of the
Opposition were made by a guest, Ms. Sparrow, who admitted that
she could not hear what the Prime Minister was saying.
The Prime Minister categorically denied the allegations of Ms.
Sparrow, so I think that should end that aspect of this matter.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, whatever happened to the concept of ministerial
accountability? Whatever happened to the concept of prime
ministerial acceptance of responsibility?
The Prime Minister passes the buck to the police. He passes the
buck to his staff. He blames the protesters and now his spin
doctors are smearing a witness.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to refuse to tell Canadians
what he told the RCMP and his staff to do?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has been in the House every day until
today answering questions over and over again.
I might add that the student protesters themselves asked the
RCMP Public Complaints Commission, an arm's length civilian body,
to look into their concerns. The complaints commission is
proceeding to do this.
Why is the Leader of the Opposition trying to undermine the work
of this reputable body set up by parliament?
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP Internal Complaints Commission is the only
commission looking into the APEC summit event right now. That
inquiry cannot investigate politicians. It cannot investigate
bureaucrats. Even if the commission subpoenas documents from the
Prime Minister he can withhold them if he so chooses. The
commission is toothless as long as the Prime Minister continues
to stonewall its activities.
Will the government commit today to personally have the Prime
Minister co-operate with the commission, including the provision
of all documents and appearing as a witness if called?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is providing material to the commission.
The commission has not asked the Prime Minister to appear, so
that is perfectly hypothetical at this point.
I again say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should not
be undermining the work of the arm's length civilian commission
which has been asked by the student protesters themselves to look
into the matter.
Why is he trying to prevent the commission from doing the work
the protesters themselves are seeking if he is on their side? He
is not acting on their side. He is not acting for human rights.
He is just making a lot of noise.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, this government says “Let the Public Complaints
Commission work. We will get out the truth”. Let me tell
members—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, they love it now, but
they hated it in 1986 when the bill was introduced.
The present minister of heritage said in 1986 “The only reason
you like the Public Complaints Commission now is that your
government is in trouble”, and that was the government of the
day.
The reason this government likes the Public Complaints
Commission now is that it is in trouble and it is the government
of the day.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to thank the hon. member for reminding us that
when he was a Conservative supporting the Mulroney government
that government brought this measure to this House. It was
adopted by this parliament. His contradiction at this time of
what he was supporting then shows that the attack on the
commission is totally unwarranted.
1420
He should give the commission the support now that he gave it
then because it is ready to do the job for the protesters that
the protesters themselves want to see done.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister should realize that I was
not there then. I was not a member of the Mulroney government.
I want to quote for him again what the present heritage minister
said about that bill in debate. She said that the commission
would be hamstrung and only be allowed to have internal
investigations and review evidence, but would not be allowed
conduct its own investigation.
Members of this government in opposition did not like this bill.
They did not like the aspect that it is not independent and it
cannot investigate the government. Why have they changed their
minds?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to apologize to the hon. member for not
recalling exactly when he left. I guess his aura hung over the
government at the time this bill—
The Speaker: We all heard the question and I
know we would like to hear the answer. The hon. Deputy Prime
Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think the best thing to do
is to let the commission do its work. Once it makes its report,
if there are valid complaints to be made, then they can be
brought up and dealt with at that time.
Right now the words of the statute give the commission the
powers to look into complaints, to investigate, to hear evidence
and to make public reports.
Let the commission do its work. That is what the student
protesters are asking. Why is the opposition trying to undermine
the concerns of the student protesters instead of letting them
have the process they themselves have asked for?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to
date, the Prime Minister has denied all involvement in the APEC
affair.
However, we learn that a witness saw him becoming personally and
directly involved in security matters at the opening of the
summit.
How should we interpret the behaviour of the Prime Minister, who
was still saying at the start of the week that he knew nothing,
as more and more testimony and facts incriminate him?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has categorically denied the testimony of this so
called witness.
The witness claims not to have heard what the Prime Minister was
actually saying at the time. Therefore the allegations made by
the leader of the third party are totally erroneous.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
know what a denial from the Prime Minister is worth; he said he
would abolish the GST. His denial is no reassurance.
In the light of the latest facts and given that we know the
Prime Minister was personally involved at the heart of the
action, given that he “clennetted” a demonstrator across the
river, and that he was the one giving the RCMP orders, how much
credibility can the RCMP investigation have if the Prime
Minister is refusing to testify?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
commission did not ask the Prime Minister to testify. Second,
the commission established by this Parliament works at arm's
length from the government and the RCMP.
So let us let the commission do its work. This is the request
of the students who submitted their complaints to this
commission.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister said, and I quote: “I am a populist and I
can even defend myself on occasion”.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has lost control of himself
more than once.
Is it not a bit of a concern to Canadians to have a Prime
Minister who completely loses control of himself in tense
situations?
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is the Bloc Quebecois that has completely lost control, with its
misguided questions today.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister realize that, by engaging in conduct so
inappropriate to his office, he brings discredit on all
Canadians, purely for the purpose of keeping a paranoid dictator
happy?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder who prepared that question. Was it Mr. Landry or Mr.
Parizeau?
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister and the Solicitor General keep dodging our
questions by hiding behind the Public Complaints Commission.
But how can the commission do its job and get at the truth if
the Prime Minister is not to appear and if the PMO has destroyed
crucial documents? Why the cover-up?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is making an allegation which, as
far as I am aware, is not founded on fact. Second, the
commission has not asked the Prime Minister to appear. Third,
the commission was set up by this Parliament. It was given
powers by this Parliament. There has been no indication in any
way that it will not do the job expected of it by this Parliament
and, more important, the job expected of it by the student
protesters who have lodged their complaints before that
commission.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Student protesters,
Mr. Speaker, who are not going to get any legal representation.
Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer questions about
the destruction of APEC documents. Today we learned that former
operations director, Jean Carle, has admitted to destroying
documents pertaining to Spray-PEC.
What is the PMO hiding? Who are they trying to protect?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): The first
thing I have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look into the accuracy of
the hon. member's assertions and innuendo. After I check into
them either I myself or the Prime Minister will reply more
fully.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker,
ministerial permits to allow a general and six of Suharto's
commandos into Canada were issued the same day that Indonesians
applied for them, November 19, 1997. These permits were issued
after the Indonesians asked the RCMP if it was okay to shoot
Canadian protesters, and a week before the APEC summit.
Could the Minister of Immigration tell us when or if her
officials informed the RCMP that she issued these permits and
will she table any documents related to these permits in this
House?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question of security around the APEC summit falls
within the mandate of the RCMP. Therefore it is the subject of a
Public Complaints Commission investigation. We have to protect
the integrity of that investigation to get to the truth, despite
the fact that many would have that integrity questioned here in
the House.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for issuing permits into
Canada, not the Solicitor General, and it is not about the Public
Complaints Commission.
We know that permits to let Suharto's commandos into Canada were
issued. Under the law only the Minister of Immigration can issue
them.
These permits were issued after the RCMP were asked by the
Indonesians if it was okay to shoot Canadians.
On what basis did the Minister of Immigration issue the permits?
Did the Prime Minister's office ask her to issue them? Did her
office immediately inform the RCMP that the permits had been
issued?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said this week many times, the reality is that
security questions fall within the purview of the RCMP. Since
the RCMP is the subject of a public complaints commission
inquiry, which was asked for by the protesters themselves, it
would be imprudent, in fact inappropriate, for me to do anything
that might influence politically the outcome of that
investigation.
1430
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
quoting from today's Vancouver Sun, an article by Peter
O'Neil says “the commissioner of the Public Complaints
Commission says he is still trying to obtain documents from the
Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council and the Department of
Foreign Affairs”.
We remember Somalia. We remember the Krever inquiry. We
remember the destruction of documents, and we did not receive an
assurance from the Prime Minister or the solicitor general
yesterday that there would be no destruction of documents.
Will we have that assurance today? Yes or no.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has my assurance that at this point
there has been no indication of any problems in that regard.
In fact the council for the commission very specifically said
there have been no problems getting access to any information
requested.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a pretty cute answer coming from the solicitor general.
It speaks to the whole issue of the level of the inquiry that is
going on.
There is no level of inquiry. It is under the Public Complaints
Commission, and I quote from the RCMP Act “They only may look
into any member or any other person employed under the authority
of this act”.
That is what the Public Complaints Commission can look into. It
is strictly a snow job that the solicitor general is doing the
cover-up for this—
The Speaker: The hon. solicitor general.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this inquiry has exactly the same powers as the kind of
inquiry the hon. member was demanding, very specifically the
powers of a board of inquiry.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Minister of Finance this
week proposed to his cabinet colleagues that they circumvent the
Employment Insurance Act in order to be able to use the huge
annual surpluses of $6 billion for purposes other than
employment insurance.
In so doing, is the Minister of Finance not simply seeking to
legalize the misappropriation of employment insurance surplus
funds in which he has been involved for several years now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member ought to look at the government's record for the
past several years.
When the previous government came in, its intention was to raise
the employment insurance contribution rate to $3.30. We froze it
at $3.07. Every year since then, we have decreased employment
insurance contributions. Last year, we brought them down 20
cents. As well, we did away with employment insurance
contributions for those under the age of 25.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the minister deny that the siphoning-off
operation he has been involved in for a number of years, and
which he plans to continue, will have to be considered illegal,
if he does not soon make a quite substantial cut to EI premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know that the government has choices to make, and make them we
will.
The choice of the Bloc Quebecois is to decrease taxes and
increase spending, or in other words to ensure that Canada will
again fall into a deficit position. That is not our choice.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the finance minister said Bernard Dussault was fired
over “management issues”. This is a public servant with an
impeccable record as Canada's chief actuary for the last seven
years.
I have a question for the minister. Was the decision to fire
him now related in any way to his forthcoming report on the
solvency of the Canada pension plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has already
answered that question. He has said that the answer to that
question was no.
Let us be very clear. The Minister of Finance was not involved
in the decision and did not make the decision.
I would simply ask: Is the Reform Party saying that the
Minister of Finance ought to hire and ought to fire the chief
actuary? Is it saying that we ought to have the politicization
of the finest public servants in the world?
I hope that is not the case, because that is not what the
government would do.
1435
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister is accountable to the House for the Canada
pension plan. He is in charge, not Mr. Palmer.
We want to know what the finance minister knew about this. He
said already that he knew ahead of time that there were
management problems. Surely he does not expect us to believe
that he did not bother to inquire as to the nature of those
problems, and we now need to know what the nature of those
problems were. If he does not know then what is he doing in that
chair?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course I knew that there were management difficulties
between the superintendent and the chief actuary. It is within
the Department of Finance but I was not involved in the decision.
The whole world knows that there is chaos and management
difficulties within the Reform caucus, but I am not going to deal
with it.
* * *
[Translation]
SCRAPIE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food.
The minister has already ordered the slaughtering of 11,000
sheep in Quebec, in an effort to eliminate scrapie, and it
appears that thousands more will be destroyed without any
further assessment.
Should the Minister of Agriculture not suspend the slaughtering
and assess the situation, along with the producers and the
Quebec Minister of Agriculture, before taking any further
action?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day and as I will
continue to say, we are certainly not pleased that we have to do
what we are doing in order to move to the eradication of a
reportable disease in our livestock herd.
It is a reportable disease in the world and it is important that
we eliminate it from our livestock herd. When we do so, we
compensate the producers for the loss of the animal and we pay
for the disposal of the animal.
We are working with the industry to make this as easy as
possible for producers. I again ask for the co-operation of the
Quebec government in doing so.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that, if Quebec's best sheep producers are
facing such a serious situation, it is because their flocks were
infected by animals from the federal experimental farm, in
Lennoxville?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I correct the hon. member. There has
been no proof of the statement she just made.
I also remind her that in the last three years the government
has given the province of Quebec $200 million to assist in the
farm safety net income program in Quebec. Had it used that in
the same manner as other provinces have used theirs, it would
have been able to assist its producers in Quebec.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the EI commission is about to force the government
to lower EI premiums.
It appears the Minister of Finance does not want to let his
golden goose get killed quite yet. He is planning on changing
the law to allow him to keep fleecing the multi-billion dollar EI
surplus.
The finance minister talks about choices. I ask him to make the
right choice today and say that he will not change the law, that
he will comply with the EI commission and that he will lower EI
premiums? Will he do it today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said in response to an early question, the
government has reduced the premiums each and every year since we
took office. Not only that. In the last budget we eliminated
the premiums for companies that were to hire young Canadians.
It is important to understand that is the principle the
government has followed and will continue to follow.
1440
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows very well that there is
about $6 billion over the allowed surplus which he can make a
decision today to put toward lowering EI premiums. Incidentally
that will spur the economy, will create jobs and will make
Canadian workers and businesses a lot happier. Let us make the
right choice today.
Does the finance minister intend to comply with the directive of
the EI commission to use that surplus to once again lower EI
premiums? Yes or no.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from the very beginning when the country had its back to
the wall we eliminated the deficit by following a balanced
approach. That balanced approach involved the reduction of EI
premiums, the lowering of taxes, spending in areas which were
important for the country's future, and the lowering of debt.
That is a program that has worked and will continue to work. We
will stay the course.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we just
went through three consecutive months of economic slowdown. The
composite index shows a zero rate of growth for August.
Companies' backlogs of orders are dwindling. Bankruptcies are on
the rise. Employment in commercial services is down. Forecasts
for 1999 are being revised downward.
How many more indicators of this type does the Minister of
Finance need to get his head out of the sand and to quickly
table a special budget providing for tax cuts and an increase in
social transfers to the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the hon. member's question, I think that we should
simply consult the experts. Allow me to quote one of them: “To
state things clearly, we must not panic but maintain the
discipline that we worked so hard to acquire in recent years.
Otherwise, we would very quickly find ourselves with an even
weaker currency, higher interest rates, lower investments and
higher unemployment.” That is what Ken Courtis, the chief
economist of the Deutsche Bank, said. The hon. member is
suggesting we go back to a deficit position. But that is not our
intention.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canadian trucks carrying appropriately traded agricultural
products continue to encounter unwarranted inspection and delay
at some U.S. state borders.
What action is the minister prepared to take to put a stop to
this situation and stop it now?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning the secretary of agriculture
for the United States debriefed our ambassador on last evening's
special cabinet session in Washington. Regrettably the response
was simply not good enough.
As a result, in consultation with the minister of agriculture as
well as the minister responsible for the wheat board, and
effective at 2 p.m., Canada has given official notice to both the
United States and to the WTO that we will be seeking remedy as a
first step through NAFTA and the WTO, and that we have every
expectation to resolve this issue once and for all.
* * *
THE SENATE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for days now we have been asking the justice minister about the
Alberta Senate election but she just lies still and lets the
Prime Minister attack Alberta. If she sits so idly by while he is
attacking us in public, I can only guess how she is selling
Albertans short in private.
I would like to ask the justice minister today, if she is
allowed to answer, just what is it under section 24 of the
Constitution that she is objecting to that she will not support
and respect the Alberta Senate election.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I know we have been away for a
little while so we may have forgotten that questions are actually
posed to the government and anyone on the government benches may
answer them.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has been in the House for some time. She
must know that it is not proper to ask the Minister of Justice to
provide a legal opinion. That is why obviously she is declining
to answer the hon. member's question and she does not have to
answer it.
1445
In any event, I do not know why in the name of democracy, the
hon. member is asking for approval of undemocratic conduct,
electing somebody for life without any accountability, without
any need to return to the people and see whether the so-called
elected senator is to be returned.
Why does the hon. member not take a stand for democracy rather
than supporting this truly undemocratic process if we look at it
right to the bottom?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
frankly I had never guessed that an election might be
undemocratic. Forgive me.
I would like to ask the government again about how it always
resorts to section 24 of the constitution. There is absolutely
nothing in section 24 of the constitution which does not support
an election. There is nothing either that says that the prime
minister has to be directly involved.
I would like to ask the justice minister who is from Alberta why
she will not stand up and support and represent Alberta in our
Senate election, which is legal, on October 19.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it has been well established that ministers do
not answer with respect to any regional responsibilities. They
answer with respect to departmental responsibilities.
The hon. member should know that because she has been here quite
a while. Why does she want somebody to be elected for life
without any recourse of the people originally carrying out the
election to get somebody else if they do not like the way the job
is done? That is not democratic.
In spite of what she says here, she and her party had a chance
to have an elected Senate had they supported Charlottetown. They
rejected Charlottetown. They have to live with the results of
their irresponsibility.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this might surprise you. I am not quite prepared for this
question.
I would like to ask the justice minister, once again who is from
Alberta, just why is it that she will not stand up and answer the
questions put—-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today we heard how
Canada brought honour to itself as a leader in the battle to end
apartheid, a system deplored for its violent contempt of human
rights. But at APEC the Prime Minister brought dishonour when he
trampled on the rights of Canadian students to welcome a dictator
deplored for his contempt of both human rights and human life.
Will the government come clean on APEC and reassure the young
people of Canada that we are a defender, not an abuser, of human
rights?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to reject the premise of the hon. member's
question. The Prime Minister is a vigorous spokesman for human
rights. He was the chief protagonist of the charter of rights
and freedoms. This should be recognized and the Prime Minister
should be praised for his continuous defence of human rights in
Canada and around the world.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
a Prime Minister who talks so much about human rights, his
actions in Vancouver speak louder than words. Students opposed
to APEC were detained without cause, violently attacked and are
expected to defend themselves with neither funding nor support
against a battalion of backroom government lawyers.
Will the Prime Minister and the government do the right thing
and provide the legal representation for students attacked at
APEC?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is because we respect due process that we would like
to see it work and let the public complaints commission do its
job as the students have requested.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister says it is more effective to engage dictators than
to isolate them. The whole idea with engagement is that by
engaging dictators in a dialogue, we can teach them something
about human rights.
My question for the Prime Minister is did Suharto learn about
human rights while he was in Canada or did the Prime Minister
take lessons from Suharto in systematic abuse of power and
oppression?
1450
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I reject the unwarranted premise of the hon. member's
question.
I know it has been publicly reported that both the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised the human
rights issue with Suharto in Indonesia itself. That took a lot
of guts. They should be praised for that and their continued
defence of human rights in Canada and around the world.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the House the finance minister said we have
separated politics from the administration of the public service.
Yet when the Ontario ministry of finance requested information
about the CPP from Bernard Dussault, the former chief watchdog of
the CPP, Bernard Dussault wrote a letter saying he could not
provide that information because it had to be vetted through a
new committee of the department of finance which would review the
information for its political sensitivity.
Will the minister tell us why his department gagged Bernard
Dussault, or is this simply another abuse of power?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is one supplementary question.
The fact is I am not aware of correspondence that Mr. Dussault
may have had with the Government of Ontario. I will look at it.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several
municipalities in my riding as well as in our region are
complaining about not receiving payment for their ice storm
damage claims.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell this House where
the money went?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the
disaster assistance arrangement, the provinces are responsible
for both managing the situation and paying municipalities,
individuals and organizations for the losses suffered. The role
of the federal government is to reimburse the province
afterwards, based on a set formula.
What happened in this case, is that the PQ government refused to
pay the municipalities the amounts they may be entitled to,
claiming this is a provincial jurisdiction. And the provincial
government cannot hide anything because we are not paying—
The Speaker: The leader of the official opposition.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every day that the violations of the free trade
agreement by the U.S. border states continue it hurts our
farmers.
We welcome the decision by the government to take the first step
toward ending this dispute through submitting it to NAFTA
arbitration.
Will the minister tell the House what is the earliest possible
date that a formal dispute settling panel can be set up and will
he tell Canadian farmers what they are to do in the interim?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's earlier
question, I mentioned very clearly that going to NAFTA and WTO is
but a first step. Clearly we will be seeing the American
response and acting accordingly.
To the specifics of the hon. member's question, within NAFTA the
first meeting must be held within 15 days. At the WTO it is
within 10.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of Finance makes all sorts of smart aleck remarks, but
he failed to mention earlier that, in light of the increase in
interest rates by the Bank of Canada and the latest figures on
the downturn, financial analysts are the ones currently
demanding that the minister take action to stabilize the
economy.
Will the Minister of Finance still be a smart aleck when, in a
few months, we are facing a full-blown recession because of him
and thousands of jobs are lost because he failed to listen to
economic indicators today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must know that short to mid term interest rates are
lower now than they were two months ago, and even last month. In
fact, they are almost at an all time low for stimulating the
economy.
Once again, perhaps the hon. member does not believe me, but “we
believe the Canadian economy is strong and sound, not
threatened”.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Paul Martin: This was said by Lucien Bouchard, the premier
of Quebec, in August.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Oxford.
* * *
1455
[English]
OCEANS
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the
international year of the oceans. Since our country is bordered
by the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans I ask the minister of
fisheries what this government is doing to improve the health of
our oceans.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government
recognized early in its mandate the importance of oceans. As a
result, we introduced into law, effective January 1, 1998, the
Oceans Act.
There have been many events taking place across Canada over this
summer to celebrate the international year of the oceans. We do
have an oceans strategy and we are working on that more
thoroughly.
Recently two pilot marine protection projects were established
in British Columbia and there are considerations for projects in
the Atlantic and the Arctic as well.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us see if we have this straight with regard to the firing of
the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan.
We understand that the Minister of Finance is informed by the
superintendent of financial institutions that there are serious
problems with the highly respected chief actuary. The chief
actuary is widely known as a man of integrity and competence.
The minister would have us believe that he did not even bother
to ask about the nature of the problems. That is absolutely
incredible.
Is this really the minister's position? Does he expect the
Canadian public to believe this line?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I go back to the point. The hon. member simply does not
understand how the Canadian system works. Mr. Dussault reports
to the superintendent of financial institutions. We have
separated politics from the administration of the public service.
Consider carefully what Reformers are saying. They are
suggesting that politicians should influence the choice of senior
level public servants. They are suggesting that we should
politicize the public service.
That would be the death knell of the finest public service in
this country, and the Reform Party ought to understand that.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture will be aware that the U.S. Congress
appears almost certain to introduce a significant farm aid
program this fall amounting to several billion dollars.
The American government is responding to some of the lowest
commodity prices in memory by promising help to its farmers.
Disastrously low prices exist on our side of the 49th parallel
as well. Would the minister of agriculture please inform the
House today what disaster relief assistance is being planned by
his department for Canadian farmers?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the disaster relief program and the farm
safety net program for Canadian farmers are already in place and
have been in place, therefore we do not have to consider and will
not consider ad hoc programs that the Americans are now
considering.
As a matter of fact, they are looking at our system and want to
know how they can copy it. We have our crop insurance. We have
our net income stabilization account, for example. In that
account alone Canadian farmers have $2.5 billion that they can
draw on in the unfortunate situations like we have this year of
low commodity prices around the world.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL CONVENTION CENTRE
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
during nine months of discussions with the federal government
regarding the planned expansion of the Montreal Convention
Centre, never once did the secretary of state for regional
development mention the infrastructure program as a means of
funding.
Why does the secretary of state for regional development
suddenly trot this out, unless he feels he cannot deliver the
goods and convince the Minister of Industry?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the plan to expand the Montreal Convention Centre goes back at
least as far as 1996 and was even designated as a priority by
the Government of Quebec at the Montreal socio-economic summit.
The Government of Canada was not present at that summit, it will
be recalled, having been excluded by the Government of Quebec.
If the Government of Quebec had given priority to Montreal
following that decision, we would have used the infrastructure
program. Unfortunately, unlike the Canadian government, it does
not give priority to Montreal.
Despite the lack of a vehicle, we are continuing to—
The Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member for
Compton—Standstead now has the floor.
* * *
1500
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In
order to enter Canada, Suharto's soldiers first had to obtain
the minister's permission. They had her blessing.
Will the minister continue to state in the House that there was
no abuse of power, when it was she who, under the Prime
Minister's authority, gave known criminals a licence to kill on
Canadian soil? What is the truth?
[English]
The Speaker: I think we are starting to reach a little
bit much in our questions. I would like to give you as much room
as I can but I think we are getting to the end.
If there is an answer from the solicitor general, we will hear
it.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can only repeat that the security arrangements around
APEC were the responsibility of the RCMP. Canadians have a
system at play right now to get to the truth of these incidents.
I wish hon. members would let us get to the truth through the
instrument that was designed by this House out of respect for
this House.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
given the state of our dollar and the economic conditions of our
country, Canadians would like to know the nature of the business
of the House next week and also for the remainder of this week
from the government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding any preamble
thereof, I am pleased to respond to the question asked by my
colleague the opposition House leader.
[Translation]
This afternoon, we are going to look at Bill S-16, a 1998 act to
implement various tax conventions. Tomorrow, we will open
debate on Bill C-35 on imports and, time permitting, Bill C-51, an
act to amend the Criminal Code.
Tomorrow, however, by prior agreement, we will hear only from
the government and from the official opposition critic regarding
Bill C-51. All these bills are at the second reading stage.
[English]
On Monday we shall consider second reading of the Small Business
Loans Act amendment introduced yesterday. I believe this bill
bears number C-53.
On Tuesday we shall resume third reading debate on Bill C-3
respecting DNA which unfortunately is subject to a hoist motion
right now. This will be followed, time permitting, by Bill C-42,
the tobacco legislation.
On Wednesday we would hope to complete Bill C-51 and any of the
aforementioned measures not previously completed.
On Thursday we would hope to begin consideration of Bill C-43
respecting the revenue agency.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in both official languages a number of order in
council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
[English]
OBSERVANCE OF TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE ON REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-434, an act to promote the observance
of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise, seconded by the hon. member for
Edmonton East, to move first reading of an act to promote the
observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. This is
a variation of an earlier bill I introduced in this parliament
which was substantially to the same effect.
The bill calls upon all Canadians to observe a more fulsome
commemoration of the traditional two minutes of silence on
Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, a tradition which was once
thoroughly held and kept throughout Canada and the rest of the
British Commonwealth. Unfortunately in recent years it has been
on the wane.
The bill has been modelled upon a similar private members' bill
introduced and passed in the Ontario provincial legislature, and
indeed one in the British Westminster parliament. It is
supported by the Royal Canadian Legion and many other veterans
organizations.
I hope that this bill will be drawn and that we will have an
opportunity as we approach Remembrance Day this November to
debate this important subject.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
BANK OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-435, an Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act
(withdrawal of the thousand dollar note).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased introduce, with the support
of my hon. colleague for Rosemont, Bill C-435, an Act to amend
the Bank of Canada Act (withdrawal of the thousand dollar note).
The purpose of this bill is to provide Canada's police forces
with a more effective weapon against money laundering and
organized crime. It is a measure that has long been called for
by Canadian, Quebec and Montreal police forces.
Canada is one of the few countries to have such a high
denomination in its currency.
After the bill becomes law, the thousand dollar notes will be
legal tender for another three months. People will therefore be
able to exchange them at their local caisse populaire or bank
for those three months.
After that, they will have to deal with the Bank of Canada here
in Ottawa to change their thousand dollar notes. After six
months, thousand dollar notes will no longer be legal tender in
Canada, in keeping with the wishes of a number of the country's
police forces.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition that is signed by many of my constituents calling on
this House to support the immediate initiation and conclusion by
the year 2000 of an international convention which would set out
a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons all
over the world.
1510
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present two petitions today.
The first is a petition signed by approximately 200 citizens
requesting parliament to amend the Young Offenders Act by
lowering the age limit, by providing for the automatic transfer
of violent offenders to adult court and by providing for the
publication of names of violent offenders.
AGE OF CONSENT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second petition signed by approximately 800 citizens
requesting parliament to amend the Criminal Code to raise the age
of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an
adult from 14 years to 16 years.
REFUGEES
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present today.
The first one calls upon the government to re-evaluate its
policy with respect to undocumented convention refugees in the
Canada class and to consider the implementation of a
recommendation to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration which reads that the waiting period before which a
recognized refugee may become considered a convention refugee
would be reduced from five years to three years.
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition I wish to present on behalf of constituents reads
“We the undersigned draw attention to the fact that the”—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. member I am
sure knows that he cannot read a petition. He is invited to give
a summary of the petition in his presentation but I would urge
him to comply with the rules and not read the petition.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I have
done this so I was not aware of that frankly.
This petition calls for the national highway system to be
upgraded and updated in the interests of job creation and our
transportation industry and so on.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
third and last petition I would like to present is with regard to
the abolition of nuclear weapons. The many people who have signed
this petition are calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, I
believe much like what another hon. member just presented, by the
year 2000 and the creation of an international convention which
will set out a binding timetable for the eradication of nuclear
weapons.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions to table in the House today both dealing
with the same issue.
The petitioners ask that parliament enact Bill C-225, and act to
amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the
Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today
from the constituents of New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
In the first petition the petitioners believe that stricter gun
control laws are not a solution to crime. Therefore they call
upon parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and redirect hundreds of
millions of dollars to programs that will actually improve public
safety.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition 102 petitioners
believe that it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage
as it has always been known and understood in Canada be preserved
and protected. They pray that parliament will enact Bill C-225
to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
CRTC
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition to present today signed by over 200 of
the constituents of Prince George—Peace River. They note that
on the same day that the Canadian Radio
Television-Telecommunications Commission refused to license four
religious broadcasters it did indeed license the pornographic
Playboy channel television service.
The petitioners believe that Canadians have a constitutional
right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression.
Therefore they call upon parliament to review the mandate of CRTC
and direct the CRTC to administer a new policy which will
encourage the licensing of religious broadcasters.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a number of petitions today.
The first petition has to do with lowering the age in the Young
Offenders Act from the age of 12 to 10 and also some other
changes to the Young Offenders Act, increasing the penalty for
first degree murder from a maximum of 10 years to 15 and ensuring
parental responsibility.
1515
MARRIAGE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I also have a petition from constituents which has to do with the
issue of marriage. The petitioners ask that Bill C-225, an act
to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female, be implemented.
I am presenting this petition on behalf of my constituents. I
would remind my hon. colleagues that it is my duty as a member to
present my constituents' wishes.
I have another petition that I will table at another time.
The Deputy Speaker: We will all look forward to that.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1998
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada
and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and
the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and
the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker,
I believe you will find the unanimous consent of the House to
split the 40 minute speaking time allocated to the official
opposition into four 10 minute speeches. There are no questions
and comments associated with that.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
the suggestion of the hon. House Leader for the official
opposition?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak today at second reading of Bill S-16.
This legislation will implement the income tax conventions that
Canada recently signed with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile. Bill
S-16 is important as it is part of an ongoing effort to update
Canada's network of income tax conventions.
Tax treaties are directly related to international trade and
thus have a subsequent impact on Canada's domestic economic
performance. Their benefits are therefore significant. Witness
the almost 40% of Canada's annual economic wealth that depends on
exports, commerce abroad and direct foreign investment.
Canada has been updating its network of tax treaties regularly
since 1971 when our income tax system was overhauled. One of the
outcomes of this overhaul was the expansion of our network of tax
treaties. Canada now has income tax treaties with 64 countries.
Canada has two main objectives in mind when signing tax
conventions with other countries. One is the avoidance of double
taxation. The other is the prevention of income tax evasion. New
tax treatments are, for the most part, similar to others already
concluded by Canada. However, by necessity they do vary from one
country to another.
Bill S-16 guarantees that our income tax rules are integrated to
ensure that our agreements with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile have
full force and effect.
Before I discuss some of the specifics in the bill I want to
highlight three major benefits that will result from the bill.
First, taxpayers will know that a rate of tax limited under any
of these agreements cannot be increased without substantial
advance notice of any changes.
Second, Canadian taxpayers with business interests or
investments in Vietnam, Croatia or Chile will operate under a
reduced compliance burden as the rules of the game will become
clearer.
Third, taxpayers involved in international transactions where
double taxation occasionally occurs will see this problem largely
eliminated.
In a world where people and capital are increasingly mobile,
double taxation treaties are crucial because they ensure that
returns will not be taxed twice. Canada has 64 treaties,
including our conventions with Vietnam, Croatia and Chile, which
eliminate double taxation in one of two ways.
1520
They assign exclusive taxing rights to only the taxpayer's
country of residence or the source country of the income. Or
they require the country of residence to give credit for the tax
paid to the source country if the income is taxable in both
countries.
Double taxation treaties often encourage the exchange of
information between revenue authorities to prevent tax evasion,
the second objective in signing these treaties, and Bill S-16 is
certainly no different.
Withholding taxes are another major issue addressed in this
particular bill. A taxpayer's country of residence can usually
withhold tax at a rate of 5%, 10% or 15% on dividends and branch
profits, and 10% on interest and royalties. In some cases
royalties on copyright, computer software, patent and know-how
are exempt at source.
Under the agreement with Vietnam, there will be a reduced
dividend rate of 5% for a Canadian company with at least 70% of
the Vietnam company's voting power, 10% for a company controlling
between 25% and 70% of voting power, and 15% in all other cases.
In addition, there will be a reduced branch tax rate of 5%, a
reduced 10% rate on interest and royalties and a 7.5% on
technical service fees.
For Vietnam there is no immediate exemption for royalties on
copyright, computer software, patents and know-how. However, if
Vietnam agrees to any future exemptions with other OECD
countries, Canada and Canadians will automatically obtain the
benefit of that same exemption.
Under the treaty with Croatia, the reduced dividend rate will be
5% for a company controlling at least 10% of the voting power, or
holding at least 25% of the capital, and 15% in all other cases.
The rates on branch taxes and interest and royalties will be 5%
and 10% respectively. Again, there is no exemption for interest
or royalties on copyright, computer software, patents and
know-how.
In the convention with Chile, the reduced dividend rate will be
10% for a company owning at least 25% of the voting power and 15%
in all other cases. A 10% branch tax rate will apply, and if
Chile agrees to a 5% rate with another OECD country, this lower
rate will automatically apply to Canada.
There will also be a 15% rate on interest and royalties, but no
exemption for interest or royalties on copyright, computer
software, patents and know-how.
Another measure I would like to discuss concerns non-resident
pensions. Bill S-16 respects Canada's right to tax pensions and
annuities paid to non-residents. Under the agreements with
Vietnam and Croatia, pension payments can be taxed in both
countries, with the source country collecting no more than 15% of
the total payment. Social security benefits will be taxable only
by the country that pays those benefits. With respect to Canada
and Chile, pension and social security payments will be taxable
by the country from which the payments are made.
Hon. members may be interested to know that capital gains on the
sale of real property, business assets and shares in real estate
companies, or interest in real estate partnerships or trusts will
remain taxable by the country in which the property is situated.
In conclusion, there are some very real benefits for Canadians
in this bill. With no tax treaty presently in force with
Vietnam, Croatia or Chile, these agreements will definitely help
Canadian corporations and individuals with operations and
investments there. Along with promoting international trade and
investment, and helping to secure Canada's position in the
increasingly competitive world of trade and investment, their
existence will also foster an atmosphere of certainty and
stability for investors and traders that will only enhance
Canada's economic relationship with each country. At the same
time these agreements will help to ensure that Canadian tax
policy remains consistent internationally.
I also point out that there will be no revenue losses to any of
the countries affected by this bill.
1525
Tax treaties are part of the normal apparatus of international
relations for a modern economy and their expansion is part of the
ongoing operations of a responsible government. This is
important and non-controversial legislation and I encourage hon.
members to grant its speedy passage.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at the outset I would like to remind the House that, pursuant to
unanimous consent, I will be splitting the official opposition's
40 minute allocation between myself, the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford, the member for Medicine Hat and the member
for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, in that order.
The official opposition supports Bill S-16, an act to implement
an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia
and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for
the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to taxes on income.
We, as a party for free enterprise, strongly support measures of
this nature which can remove barriers to commerce and make
efficient financial flows between trading jurisdictions such as
Canada and the three countries stipulated in this bill.
We have reviewed this bill in detail and find that it is
substantively in keeping with the model for international tax
conventions proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development.
I would second the substantive remarks of the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance who just detailed for us
some of the elements of this bill.
I would, however, make reference to one concern that I have,
which is with respect to an element of this bill which confirms a
tax convention with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. While in
principle I think it is a good thing for Canada to establish
firmer trade links leading to greater prosperity between
ourselves and international jurisdictions, I think this gives us
pause to reflect on the general foreign and economic policies of
the current government vis-à-vis tyrannical regimes overseas.
We have seen a recent example of this kind of cosy, pillow
fluffing, red carpet treatment that Canada provides to foreign
jurisdictions, such as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and
Indonesian, a country we have been talking about in this House
recently.
While I do not oppose the effort to establish a tax convention
of this nature with Vietnam, I do wish that it were tied more
clearly to a more vigorous articulation on the part of the
Canadian government of the need for the respect of human,
religious and civil rights in communist tyrannies such as the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Simply opening up trade and more efficient means of financial
balances such as these tax conventions without a concomitant
effort to press the need for human rights and political reforms
is, in my view, insufficient and is a black mark on the record of
this government and of this country.
Having said that, let me say that I and my colleagues object
most strenuously to the process by which we find ourselves
addressing this bill as S-16. For those not familiar with
parliamentary procedure, it is coded as S-16 because it is a
bill that was introduced in the Senate in May of this year.
Why was this bill introduced in the Senate? Conventionally in
this Parliament, right from its beginning, bills, and
particularly meaningful government bills, have been introduced in
the lower chamber, the House of Commons, reviewed, debated,
passed and then submitted to the upper chamber in the other
place.
However, in this case we have before us one instance of the
growing and troubling pattern on the part of this government to
introduce legislation such as Bill S-16 in the Senate, to pass it
there and then to bring it before us here in the Commons.
We submit this is a contravention of a long established
parliamentary convention whereby we respect the de facto
supremacy of the lower Chamber, the elected Chamber, the
democratically legitimate Chamber over the appointed patronage
haven we call the Senate to introduce and discuss bills here
first.
1530
Bills ought to be introduced and debated, deliberated on and
passed here and then considered by the Senate as a de facto
rubber stamp rather than the other way around. Instead we find
ourselves, through introducing this and other bills at the
Senate, increasing the legitimacy of what is in actual fact an
increasingly illegitimate body in the eyes of the Canadian people
and the official opposition. We find this very troubling indeed.
We have asked the government in our negotiations with its House
leadership and in public statements here and elsewhere to respect
the long established parliamentary convention of introducing
legislation of this nature, government bills, in the Commons for
consideration by the duly elected representatives of the people
before proceeding to the Senate and not the other way around. But
the government has decided to refuse to respect that convention
and to refuse to assert the democratic authority of this place
over the Senate.
This is very unfortunate, particularly in light of the fact that
this government has virtually no substantive legislative agenda.
Here we are in Canada with an economy that is slowing down, with
a nearly $600 billion debt, with the highest personal income tax
rates in the G-7, with a dollar that has just this summer reached
historic all time lows. Here we are with enormous problems to
deal with in terms of the livelihoods of Canadians and what does
this government have on its legislative agenda? Very little
except for little technical bills of this nature.
So there is no compelling reason for the government to have
introduced this bill or similar bills in the Senate for its
consideration before the consideration of the Commons. There is
no compelling reason except for the government's decision to try
to legitimize the upper chamber at a time when in the eyes of
Canadians it is increasingly an illegitimate body.
I say this about Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement
between Canada and the republics of Vietnam, Croatia and Chile,
because we have before us in this place a rare historic
opportunity. That is an opportunity provided to us by the duly
elected government of the province of Alberta. The Alberta
legislature has decided to convene and hold an election for
senators in that province, an election that will be held on
October 19. This election is not being held as some symbolic
frivolous effort by a political gesture on the part of the people
of Alberta.
Rather, the Government of Alberta wants the people of Alberta to
choose its next senators to begin the long, arduous but
critically important process of fundamental Senate reform so that
one day we can reach a situation where the upper chamber is
elected and is accountable, so it can exercise effective powers
hopefully with equitable if not equal representation from the
provinces and regions so that it can consider bills like Bill
S-16, so that it can even talk about technical government
legislation such as tax conventions with a modicum of democratic
legitimacy. Until that day arrives we assert the prerogative of
this House, the democratic assembly of this parliament, to
consider bills of this nature first before they go to the
patronage haven down the road.
Today we heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Senate
elections in Alberta are undemocratic. Undemocratic elections?
Let me get this straight. In this strange twisted Orwellian
world of the government opposite it is undemocratic to have
elections but it is democratic to appoint people to an upper
chamber to decide how tax dollars are spent and to use the
enormous and sometimes coercive power of the state.
I fail to grasp the twisted logic of the Deputy Prime Minister
and the government in introducing bills like this and in
attacking a legitimate effort to push the agenda of democratic
reform in parliament. The Liberal Party of Canada and the Right
Hon. Prime Minister say they favour reform of the Senate. I then
invite them to demonstrate that support by introducing bills like
this in the lower Chamber first.
1535
Before my time expires I would like to move—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
move, seconded by the member for Langley—Abottsford—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member cannot move a motion
on a point of order. I suggest that given the circumstances he
pass it on to one of his colleagues, whoever is going to speak
next. I believe it will be the hon. member for
Langley—Abottsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you can count on this being a very pleasant speech because I want
to talk about Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between
Canada and the republics of Vietnam, Croatia and Chile.
From my perspective Reform has always supported measures that
might in any way lower the tax burden of Canadians. I am sure
support will be found for the bill.
However, I do have, as my colleague has just talked very briefly
about, some concern about how Bill S-16 came before us. I stood
in the House a number of times on points of privilege and points
of order. The privilege I spoke about is the privilege that is
being denied members of the House to look at such bills first,
have first reading, second reading, have them go to committee,
perhaps have the committee go across the country if it is that
important to discuss with people, have the bills go to third
reading and then off to the Senate for its review.
I am really at a loss once again why we find Bill S-16, yet
another bill, coming from the Senate first into the House. The
problem I have is I guess we have to look at what makes the House
of Commons effective first of all. I think what makes the House
of Commons effective is open debate on any issue, dialogue across
and the accountability, of course. If we stand up and vote for
or against a particular bill in the House and the public does not
like it there is accountability. There is accountability at the
polls. If we look for feedback from our people it is democratic
and bills get the right filtration they need throughout the
country.
On the other hand, I guess one could look at what would hamper
that in the House. What would hamper that is a debate after the
fact, a bill going to the Senate first through unelected,
unaccountable individuals, and then coming to the House seeking
some form of rubber stamp after it has already been discussed by
the Senate. I guess we would be hampered if the individuals who
bring these sorts of bills to the House from the Senate were not
elected, which they are not, and were not accountable to people
in this country, which they are not, given that they are
patronage appointments. I do not understand for a moment why a
government time after time in the House purports to have some
form of democratic process going on when bills are coming into
the House from the Senate and are not debated first in the House
of Commons. There is something wrong with that undying
philosophy that my friends and buddies have a better process for
making legislation than individually elected members of
parliament.
1540
My colleague from Calgary Southeast talked about the
implications of Senate patronage appointments on the current
elections in Alberta. Just what does this government hope to
gain by flying in the face of Senate elections in Alberta and
appointing someone to the Senate from Alberta? What does it hope
to achieve by that?
I will tell members what it is going to achieve. It is going to
probably achieve no seats in the next election, but then it does
not have many seats in Alberta anyway. I guess the arrogance of
it all is starting to show. Maybe that's it.
When is this going to stop in this House? When is this
government going to come to the realization that the House of
Commons was built as an institution that legislates the affairs
of Canadians. When is it going to understand that the buddies,
the hacks, all those friends who have been appointed to the
Senate are really not accountable for these issues, they really
should not be initiating bills and sending them to the House?
They really should not be looking after the clean-up of issues
the government does not want to initiate in this House in the
first place.
This issue of the Senate is not going to go away. I can assure
members of that. It really does not matter to me what the
content of the bill is coming from the House of Commons. The
fact is all those bills should be initiated in this House first.
To the government it may seem that the other place, the Senate,
is accountable, it can do all the work there and save the
government some time. But that is not in the eyes of Canadians
what this is about. If we are going to legislate then we must be
accountable for our actions. We cannot toss it off to this group
over on the other side that is unaccountable.
If the Liberals think for a minute that this is not going to be
a major issue until such time as they initiate change to the
Senate, they are kidding themselves. I think the arrogance of it
all is bad enough but the overconfidence is going to get this
government. This is by no means a small issue across this
country. This happens to be a very large issue where I come from.
Canadians want a Senate that is accountable, that is elected,
that is effective and they are going to get it. If they cannot
get it through the other side they will get it through another
party and another government.
Let us stop talking about Bill S-16 being so important that we
have to get it through the Senate first. If it is so darn
important then put it through the House first. My colleague is
absolutely correct about the government's agenda. Here we are
with young people looking for jobs, a dollar that is lower than
it has ever been historically, taxes that are far too high, debt
that is far too much and what do we have in front of us? Bill
S-16 from the Senate. There is a minister here. Go back and
tell the cabinet that Bill S-16 from the Senate does not address
the issues of getting our kids back to work.
Now for my amendment. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “that” and substituting the following therefor:
Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada
and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and
the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and
the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income,
be not now read a second time, but that the order for the second
reading be discharged and a message sent to the Senate to
acquaint their honours that this House will no longer accept
legislation introduced by the Senate until the Senate agrees to
lift the ban on senators' attendance records.
1545
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take the amendment
moved by the hon. member under advisement before it decides
whether the amendment is in order and will get back to the House
as soon as possible.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-16. This is my first
time up in the House since we resumed. Like my colleagues I am
extraordinarily disappointed with the line-up that we are seeing
in the House this early in the session.
I start by pointing out that my friend is absolutely right when
he suggests that we have a huge unemployment problem in Canada
today, and here we are dealing with a bill that is, shall we say,
a bit insignificant.
We have a problem today with our dollar. In case members
opposite have not noticed, it hit 10 new historic lows in the
month of August alone.
An hon. member: How many?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Ten new historic lows, unbelievably,
and what are we talking about? A reciprocal taxation agreement
with Chile, Croatia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
We are concerned about taxation on this side, specifically about
the issue of double taxation which the bill purports to deal
with. However I would like to ask the government opposite why it
is not concerned about double taxation in Canada. For crying out
loud, we have GST on provincial sales taxes and we have GST on
fuel taxes in this country. Why does the government not move a
bill that would remove that type of double taxation? No. It is
only good when it involves countries outside Canada. It is a
disgrace that it has such a skimpy agenda.
My friends opposite have pointed to other issues. I will point
to one as well. We have the social union that is being
considered by the provinces right now. We have the federal
government balking at dealing with the provinces. They are
bringing forward for the first time in a long time a unified
proposal. We should see the federal government embracing some of
the things that are being brought forward by the provinces.
Instead we are dealing with Bill S-16. It is absolutely
unbelievable.
I point to an issue that has been heating up all summer and
actually deals specifically with the bill but not in the way the
government was proposing. I am talking about the Senate
elections in Alberta.
Here we have a bill initiated in the Senate, a bill that,
granted, is not a big important bill. However it deals with
taxation. If a bill begins in a place where there are not elected
people but actually patronage appointments, it is fair to say
that essentially what we have here is a case of a taxation bill
being drawn without representation. I am extraordinarily
concerned that we are allowing this to continue to happen in this
place. We have pointed this out before.
People in the lower house are elected; people in the upper house
are appointed. They are friends of the Prime Minister and
previous prime ministers. They are great hockey players in some
cases but they are not people who were elected. They do not
necessarily bring any expertise to these issues. I am
disappointed that we have to lecture the government once again on
what democracy is all about.
Today we had a great democrat speak in this place, Nelson
Mandela. He spoke about democracy and I thought how ironic that
we have Nelson Mandela in this place speaking about democracy and
the government balks at allowing democracy to happen in Alberta.
In Alberta today we are trying to hold a Senate election.
We had 600,000 people vote in the previous Senate election in
Alberta and we actually elected a senator. Finally Brian
Mulroney was forced because of tremendous public pressure to put
Stan Waters, a Reformer, into the Senate, the first really truly
accountable senator who has ever sat in that place.
1550
Now we are proposing to do the same thing again, and what do we
get from the Prime Minister? He says the Senate election is a
joke. That is what he thinks of Albertans. I will tell the
House what is a joke. I think the joke is the government's
approach to the people of Alberta and to democracy. It is
ridiculous that the Liberals will sit there day after day and say
that we rejected a Senate of an elected nature under the
Charlottetown accord. Therefore they will not give us any chance
to elect senators at all.
The Prime Minister knows that is absolutely untrue. We rejected
many aspects of the Charlottetown accord. We rejected specific
things about the Senate proposal in the accord but we really
rejected it because it would not lead to a triple E Senate,
something that Albertans believe in very strongly.
The other day one of my colleagues asked the Prime Minister what
he had done in the last five years since he had been in office to
promote a triple E Senate, to promote an elected Senate. He
could not answer. He has not done one thing in five years
despite the fact that this is the most important constitutional
issue, and even non-constitutional unity issue, for Albertans.
Despite that fact, the Prime Minister could not name one thing
his government had done to push the issue of Senate reform. Now
the Government of Alberta and Reformers have taken matters into
their own hands. Hopefully they will embarrass the government a
bit by showing it how democracy is supposed to work.
On October 19 four candidates for the position of senator will
be on the ballot when Albertans go to the polls during their
municipal elections. Two of those people will be selected and
will ultimately be suggested to the Prime Minister when the next
Senate vacancy comes up in Alberta. We certainly hope that this
time around the Prime Minister will heed the wishes of Albertans
who frankly were quite insulted the other day when the Prime
Minister went ahead, even during a Senate election, and chose to
put a patronage appointee back into the Senate. It is absolutely
disgusting.
I will wrap up my remarks by saying that this is not an issue
that Albertans will soon forget. We point out that we have been
working on this matter for a number of years. One of my new
colleagues, Bert Brown, who was nominated by Reformers the other
day, has been working on the Senate issue for 16 years. His
colleague, Ted Morton, who was also chosen by Reformers as a
nominee for the Senate election, is a political scientist who has
been working hard to push the issue of Senate reform for a long
time.
We will not leave this issue alone. We will continue to pound
away at the government on that issue and on the issues the
government should be dealing with today such as lower taxes, not
reciprocal tax agreements with other countries around the world.
We will pound away on the issue of debt.
We want to know why there is not a bill before us today
legislating debt paydown. We want to know why there is not
legislation today dealing with some of the issues the provinces
have raised in their recent discussions in Saskatoon. We want to
know those things and we will continue to pound away.
We are putting the government on notice that we are prepared to
bring these issues to this place, even if the government has
become so disconnected from Canadians that the best it can do in
its first week back is to bring in a bill dealing with reciprocal
tax treaties with other countries around the world.
We think it is shameful and we are putting the government on
notice that we will continue to bring these issues to the
government, irrespective of the trashy legislation it has brought
before us.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the
admissibility of the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
I may say the Chair has very serious concerns that the amendment
is out of order. I refer hon. members to citation 568 of
Beauchesne's sixth edition wherein it states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to
the question on which the amendment is proposed.
1555
The amendment that is proposed by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford is relevant to the bill in its first part,
but in its second part it would tend to lead to debate on the
question of attendance records of the Senate, which, while
possibly of interest to many hon. members, is not relevant to
Bill S-16 that is currently before the House.
I also draw the hon. member's attention to citation 666 of
Beauchesne's sixth edition—and I know that the whip of the
official opposition is familiar with this citation—which states:
There are three types of amendments that may be proposed at the
second reading stage of a bill. These are:
1. the hoist (eg. three months, six months).
2. the reasoned amendment.
3. the referral of the subject-matter to a committee.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford fails to meet any one of those requirements.
Accordingly I must rule the amendment out of order.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to be able to raise my
voice on Bill S-16.
The Reform caucus supports the content of Bill S-16. The bill
is technical in nature and addresses some tax discrepancies
between Canada, Vietnam, Croatia and Chile, along with agreements
that Canada has with 64 countries.
The bill is part of the thousands of similar mutual agreements
that increasingly are being made between countries and
organizations. It reflects the growing realization that
co-operation and friendly competition under the same set of rules
in the long run benefits all the players. When enlightened
peoples learn to play fair economically by established rules, all
of the world societies can be lifted up.
It is the direct opposite approach from the historical methods
of socialism and in a partial way the tendencies of NDP
governments in Canada. The politics of envy, exclusion and
special rules for some and of quotas, exclusive regulation and a
host of many other measures that limit basic freedoms in the
marketplace are the hallmarks of that kind of thinking.
Unfortunately those kinds of hurtful ideas are still rampant in
the academic community of the country and in too much of the
reasoning from some of the NDP sympathizers.
Although the social goals may be the same as mine, the ideas
about what is wise concerning methods of getting there makes all
the difference. It goes much beyond belief. It goes to the hard
evidence of what it shown over time to work and what is shown not
to work.
When I travelled to Moscow last year to meet with Russian
parliamentarians I was saddened by the similarity in the
underlying concepts of the arguments I heard in their Duma about
their resentments requiring economic penalty solutions such as
disincentive taxes.
The politics of barriers rather than agreements seem to carry
the day. It is no wonder that average Russians will likely
always be poor. It comes from the ideas they carry about how to
get to a better world and those ideas actually destroy any hope
of ever getting there.
We have had the same historical problems in this country to a
lesser degree. We even still see remnants of those hurtful ideas
in the budgets of the present finance minister. Since my
election to parliament in 1993 fortunately we have seen the
government reluctantly move toward better economic fundamentals,
openness, and move away from socialist tendencies. There is hope
that we can become fully a freedom loving country where every
member of society has a chance to participate in the economy and
have the opportunity to take responsibility for their welfare.
The more we get our national economic fundamentals right, the
more we as a society will be able to help those who cannot help
themselves.
There are agreements of mutual benefit among nations, provincial
economic zones, markets and labour zones. All these must
continue to be opened up with fairness, avoiding discrimination.
The bill makes an agreement with three countries. Yet we still
have a way to go to get it done, to make agreements within our
country among provinces to enhance the overall economic welfare
of Canadians. If Canada then can set the highest of standards
for the regulation of a self-renewing economy, other nations can
follow.
For example, when ethical fundamentals were violated in the
Asian economy the consequences eventually came to us all in the
world. It hurt us all. However the bill represents the
possibility of the opposite trend where we can get our economic
fundamentals right and the whole world community can be elevated
to fulfil its human potential.
1600
Mutual agreement in fairness is the goal. How we get there in
the process is also important. That is why I am concerned about
the precedent this bill sets by being first tendered by the
government in the Senate.
We do not agree that the bill should come from the other place.
Did the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance
feel that the House was too busy to handle this bill from the
beginning? Or did the government think that it needed to give
the other place a bit of work?
Reform truly believes that bills may sometimes come from the
other place, however only if the other place is elected,
effective and equal. So far, none of these traits generally
characterize the other place.
This week was the first week for a few new senators. Senator
Mahovlich put on his new suit on Tuesday, which we know from
reading the full page ad in the Globe and Mail was picked
out by his personal shopper at Harry Rosen. Off he went probably
thinking to himself that he had it made, no coaches yelling at
him, no penalty box and lots and lots of vacation time. Who can
blame any senator for feeling that way? Senator Thompson took
good advantage, as have many others.
If I had an attendance record like some of today's senators, I
would have to begin looking for a new job. My constituents would
give me the boot pretty fast. But senators do not have
constituents. They may say they do but it has become more of a
figure of speech. I would propose that if one randomly asked 10
people in Ontario to name one senator from Ontario, most would be
very hard pressed to do so. Most would probably say Alexei
Yashin and although he is a senator, he is not from the other
place.
I do not stand here today to criticize everything that is wrong
about the other place. In fact, it could very well be quite
effective. It definitely has the potential, if it was reformed.
Senator Ghitter may have said it best when he said “We do not
need to abolish the Senate. We need to change it. It is either
that or maintaining the status quo which means more and more
downward slide of the Senate”.
Throughout this past year I served on the Special Joint
Committee on Child Custody and Access. The committee was made up
of senators and members of the House of Commons of all political
stripes. Our goal was and is to suggest changes to the
unbalanced Divorce Act. I can honestly say that the work
performed by senators was excellent.
Many know already that the attendance record in the other place
of Senator Cools is very good. Her attendance and her work ethic
in the committee was also very good. I know that Senator Cools
was also appointed. I also know that the senator takes her job
very seriously. She has been a tremendous advocate for the
disadvantaged who have been shafted by the judicial system.
Senator DeWare is also another member of the committee who not
only had a good attendance record but provided a great deal of
knowledge and compassion to the issue.
Unfortunately, these two senators seem to be exceptions to the
rule of the other place. We know full well of the exploits of
Senator Thompson and his abysmal record. We also know of Senator
Lucier who attends less than half of all sitting days.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I know that the hon. member
would like to go into Senate attendance. I suggest to the hon.
member that first, it is not relevant to the discussion we are
engaged in today on Bill S-16. Second, I must advise him that it
is out of order to speak disrespectfully of the other place. I
know he knows that is the rule of this House. It is in the
standing orders of this House.
He will want to be very careful in the words he uses. I have
allowed him to go on about attendance a bit because he was being
so praiseworthy of certain hon. senators. He knows that like us,
they are members of the houses of parliament and he must avoid
speaking disrespectfully of the other place.
I invite him to refrain from getting into anything that would
touch on a personal attack on any hon. senator or that would
speak in any way disrespectfully of the other house of
parliament.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime
Minister appointed Senator Roche to the other place. For all we
know this senator may end up displaying excellent attendance
records. He may even become valuable when bills need that sober
second thought.
That is not the point I am trying to make. The point is that
the Prime Minister had every opportunity to wait until the
Alberta Senate elections on October 19 and then appoint a winner.
Senator Roche had the opportunity to throw his hat in the ring.
In recent days he said that he agrees with Senate reform. He has
also had the opportunity to honour his words.
As for the Prime Minister, by not waiting until the election, he
has told Albertans that they simply do not count. In one easy
sweep the Prime Minister has thrown Alberta mud on democracy.
1605
Even former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney honoured the wishes of
Albertans in 1989 when he appointed elected Senator Stan Waters.
The Prime Minister may have protested at first but in the end he
respected the wishes of Albertans.
The key word is respect. It is a word that Canada's Prime
Minister must comprehend. The Prime Minister may believe the
other place is working just fine, but it is unfortunate that he
does not believe in listening to what Canadians think about it.
He may even want to listen to the words of those in the other
place because they too believe that changes should take place.
Reformers are committed to moving ahead, to making democracy
better and to bringing more accountability. To the
dissatisfaction of so many, the Liberals are keen on holding on
to the status quo. Canadians are not willing to accept that
status quo however. They believe in a strong Canada and believe
in democracy. They do not believe in the old top down approach
preserved by the Liberals.
It is time that the Prime Minister let go of his gigantic ego
and did what is right for the country. If the ego means too much
and if the pride is too deep to change, then perhaps it is time
to call it quits and let a more creative leader and maybe even a
better party step in and make Canada a place of pride where all
can more fully participate.
I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “that” and substituting the following therefor:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill S-16, an act
to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic
of Croatia, and a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, since the
principle of bill does not address the issue of an elected Senate
introducing legislation which this House finds unacceptable in
today's political environment and, in particular, this House
finds it offensive that an Alberta senator has been recently
appointed by the Prime Minister before the people of Alberta vote
to fill the said position in the upcoming Senate elections in
October.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby has proposed an amendment to the
House. Once again I draw the hon. member's attention to citation
568 of Beauchesne's which states “It is an imperative rule that
every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the
amendment is proposed”.
With reluctance, the Chair finds that the amendment proposed by
the hon. member is irrelevant to the principles of this bill
which deals with taxation matters and not with an amendment of
the constitution with respect to the Senate of Canada.
Accordingly, I must rule the amendment out of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to speak to the bill on tax conventions. But first,
I would like to make a digression similar to that of my Reform
colleague earlier. I do not want to take away from this bill,
which I consider very important. Tax conventions are always
important, as are their provisions.
However, the precipitous drop in the value of the Canadian
dollar, its effects on the economy, the three consecutive months
of slower economic growth, the declining orders with businesses,
all the composite indexes, including those released yesterday by
Statistics Canada for the month of August, indicate that we are
in a period of economic slowdown. However, the Minister of
Finance keeps producing fantastic surpluses every month off the
backs of the unemployed, the sick, the provinces, everywhere
except his own back.
Instead of using these surpluses to stimulate economic growth,
he most unwisely prefers to pay off part of the debt, whereas he
should be setting up reserves and using them right now to
stabilize the economy. I would like this to have been debated
in this House.
1610
It seems to me important that we do not find ourselves in ten
months facing the delayed effects of a recession, in a full
recession with the loss of thousands of jobs, because the
Minister of Finance failed to carry out his responsibilities and
failed to use tax revenues wisely to stimulate economic growth,
create jobs and reverse the trend we have seen in recent months.
That said, I would have liked such a debate, but I would like to
devote the next few minutes to Bill S-16, which I consider very
important. It is aimed at implementing three tax conventions,
which I will explain later and which were signed between Canada
and three countries: Croatia, Chile and Vietnam.
What are these tax conventions? They are agreements Canada has
signed with the countries I just mentioned to prevent Canadian
companies, for instance, that have branches in Croatia, Chile or
Vietnam from having the revenues, capital or profits from their
branches abroad taxed twice when these revenues are brought back
into Canada.
The opposite is also true. Chilean companies also have branches
in Canada. These tax conventions ensure that the same revenues
are not taxed twice. This would not make any sense and would be
both unfair and devastating at the economic level and in terms
of job creation in Canada as well as in Croatia, Vietnam and
Chile.
Tax conventions are based on a very good principle. This
practice has been in effect in Canada and throughout the world
for many years now.
Canada has signed dozens of tax treaties with various countries,
and that is all very fine.
The problem with the tax treaties or tax conventions we sign
with other countries arises when the tax rates in these
countries are very different than our own. The difference may be
so great that, if revenues are taxed in the other country and
not in Canada, there is a terrible fiscal distortion. Also,
Revenue Canada stands to lose a lot of money in tax revenue.
Let us take as an example a country like Barbados. Barbados is
considered a tax haven, just like Bermuda, Liberia, and other
countries. In these countries, the rate of taxation is so low
that it is almost non-existent. In Barbados, the maximum
corporate income tax rate is 2.5%.
For your information, the maximum tax rate in Canada for
businesses is about 40%. The tax rate ranges from 25% to 40%
depending on the nature of the industry and the tax expenditures
applicable to each business.
Therefore, when Canada signs a tax treaty with Barbados, it
means that a Canadian company with a branch in that country will
pay only 2.5% tax on its profits there and can bring the rest
into Canada without having to pay a cent to Revenue Canada. This
makes no sense at all. The gap is too wide between the taxation
rates in these two countries.
For the Bahamas, it is even worse: the taxation rate is zero. If
Canada signs a tax treaty with the Bahamas, Canadian companies
that have a branch in that country will pay almost zero tax on
their profits there. They will then bring that money into
Canada.
Since the profits will have already been taxed in the Bahamas,
no tax will have to be paid in Canada by the parent company.
This creates a substantial imbalance.
That is why, when Canada signs a tax treaty with another
country, we have to make sure that the tax rates are comparable,
that Revenue Canada will not lose tax revenues and that this tax
treaty will not encourage companies to open bogus or even
legitimate branches in countries considered to be tax havens
simply because tax rates there are very low and because there is
a tax treaty. The Canadian company pays tax in that foreign
country and does not have to pay tax in Canada, which means a
loss of tax revenues for Revenue Canada.
1615
Those who are watching us today should know that it is the
people of Quebec and Canada who have to foot the bill for this
loss of tax revenues, for those taxes that are not paid in
Canada by Canadian companies because of these kinds of tax
treaties with countries that are considered to be tax havens. It
is the people of Quebec and Canada who have to pay the taxes
that these businesses avoid paying through the existence of
reciprocal taxation agreements also known as tax treaties.
That is why we have to avoid signing such agreements with
countries that have taxation rates that are very different from
ours.
Ever since the Bloc Quebecois was elected to this place five
years ago, every time a bill to implement a tax convention has
been introduced in the House, we have taken these conventions
very seriously, as they could ultimately result in tax losses
for Canada, which would have to be covered by individual and
corporate taxpayers in Quebec and Canada.
Every time, we have carefully considered the conventions on a
case-by-case basis to determine whether the countries entering
into a tax agreement with Canada had comparable tax rates.
In this particular case, when we checked in the International
Tax Summaries, 1998, at first glance, based on the analysis
contained in this document and our own analysis of the
situation, comparing tax rates with tax expenditures, supply,
etc., tax rates in Croatia, Chile and Vietnam seemed to be
relatively the same as in Canada.
Personal income tax rates varied between 20% and 35%. As such, a
maximum tax rate of 35% is fairly similar to what we find in
this country. The maximum corporate tax rate was also 35%.
Canada and Croatia basically have comparable rates.
Turning to Chile, again, the maximum tax rate was 35%. So, it is
really comparable to Canadian rates. There is no big difference.
In Vietnam, tax rates vary between 0% and 60%. Compared to our
35% to 40%, a maximum rate of 60% may be making this convention
slightly unfavourable to Vietnam, as far as individual taxpayers
are concerned at least. It all depends on the type of
relationship and the subsidiaries that will be established in
Vietnam by Canadian interests and vice versa. All in all, as a
basis for assessing comparative tax rates, let us say we do not
see any problem with this tax convention and we will support the
bill.
Since April 1994, when the Bloc Quebecois first intervened with
respect to a tax convention bill, we have been asking the
Minister of Finance and the government to tidy up some
long-standing tax conventions with countries whose tax rates
differ radically from Canadian tax rates and, if need be, to set
them aside because they create imbalances in fiscal exchanges
between Canada and the parties to these conventions, which are
considered tax havens.
We have asked the Minister of Finance on countless occasions to
update these conventions. As I mentioned earlier, the tax rates
in conventions signed with Liberia, Barbados and Bermuda are so
low that there is a real shortfall for Revenue Canada.
When Canadian companies with branches in these countries realize
profits that are taxed at anywhere from 0% to 2.5%, instead of
the 25% to 40% they would be taxed at here, depending on the
nature of the tax, there is a substantial imbalance.
1620
Distortions are created and there is also a shortfall that can
be substantial for individuals and for Quebec and Canadian
companies. They must make up this shortfall.
Every time we asked the Minister of Finance to do something
about this, we received a completely detached and unconcerned
reply, just as each time we asked him to really reform taxation
he told us that we had done a good job, that our analysis was
correct, but completely side-stepped the fundamental changes that
should have been introduced in 1993 after the election. Behind a
veneer of equity and fiscal fairness, the Liberal Party talked
about overhauling taxation.
Once this government was elected, what happened to its concern
for tax fairness, for tax equity, and what happened to the
promised reform of the Canadian tax system, which is still full
of loopholes? Our tax system still includes tax conventions with
countries with which we should not have such treaties, because
it is very costly for Canada.
Whenever we ask the Minister of Finance to review these
conventions with countries considered to be tax havens, he tells
us that it is not an urgent matter. He also tells us that, over
time, the government will make a few minor reforms here and
there.
Yet, it would have been so simple—as we suggested to the
finance minister back then and have kept suggesting every year,
whenever we have had the opportunity to do so when dealing with
other bills involving tax conventions—to correct the situation.
A few years ago, the United States and the European countries
were quick to react and make adjustments, in light of these
imbalances.
Let us say, for example, that Canada has signed a tax convention
with a country that has a 2.5% tax rate, as is the case for
Barbados, or where taxes are practically non-existent, as in the
Bahamas. But let us assume a 2.5% tax rate.
The United States solved the issue by providing a tax credit to
companies that have already paid some taxes on profits made by
subsidiaries in countries such as Barbados. So, a tax credit is
given to American businesses that have already paid a 2.5% tax
on their profits.
These companies are given a credit equivalent to what they have
already paid in taxes to Barbados, but they have to pay regular
taxes to the American government.
In other words, if you paid $10 in taxes to Barbados and would
normally have to pay $40 in the United States, you now owe $30
in taxes on your corporate profits. The amount already paid in
the foreign country is taken into account. This makes it
possible to continue to have tax conventions with countries
whose tax rates are much lower than ours. A tax credit is
granted to companies that have subsidiaries in countries
considered to be tax havens, for the portion—however small—of
taxes already paid abroad. These companies then pay to the
American government the full amount of taxes that they would
normally have to pay.
This is not hard to understand. It is logical and it is fair.
That is called tax fairness, tax equity, which involves the
payment of the money owed, no more, no less, to the government
by individuals and businesses.
If a business owes the government money, but through a
subsidiary in a country considered to be a tax haven it does not
pay its fair share, it is the responsibility of the Minister of
Finance and of the Liberal government to recover this money. It
does not mean threatening the survival of a business, it means
ensuring that all businesses receive the same treatment.
A Canadian business operating on Canadian soil without a
subsidiary in a tax haven pays its share of taxation at a rate
varying between 25% and 40%. Why then would a business with a
subsidiary in a tax haven be required to pay only 2.5% or
even 0%? It makes no sense.
There are distortions. There are major injustices.
Representatives of business ask us why the Minister of Finance
has failed to act in this matter up to now.
1625
The Department of Finance provides little information. It keeps
no record of financial losses that occur as a result of these
tax conventions. Nor does it keep a record of the number of
businesses set up each year so very carefully in countries
considered to be tax havens. However, the information we have
indicates that nothing has changed. Quite the contrary, the
situation has worsened.
Let us look just at the six major Canadian banks. A number of
criticisms may be levelled at them, but this one is well
founded. The six major Canadian banks have 119 branches abroad,
including 57 in the Caribbean, where tax havens abound. There
are not a lot of people, and there is not a lot of wealth.
What are the 57 branches of the six major Canadian banks doing
there? Banking, no doubt, but enough to justify maintaining 57
branches in the West Indies? We need some hard answers.
Earlier I explained how tax havens worked. The tax rate is very
low. Revenues and tax losses are allowed to circulate between
head office and the subsidiaries abroad. There are tricks to
saving taxes and perhaps the banks use them in the West Indies.
Of the 119 branches abroad, 57 are in the West Indies. Now that
is really something.
On the Cayman Islands, a typical example, the situation has not
changed, it has worsened. Around the mid 1990s, in 1994-95,
there were 28,000 companies on the Cayman Islands, a tax haven
par excellence, for a population of 30,000. That is just about
one company per inhabitant.
We can see it makes no sense. However, these are the countries
we have relations, this sort of tax convention, with. It makes
no sense at all.
This is why we keep asking to have things cleared up and a
simple rule applied, as the Americans did recently. There
should be a tax to be paid in Canada, the usual business tax,
and a credit given for the tax already paid abroad—whether it
is 15%, 20% or 25%—and the tax payable less the credit comes to
something close to zero. That is the way it should be. This
way we could say there was no problem for countries we have tax
conventions with, if their tax rate is the same.
The credit amounts to the tax they paid there, and the tax
payable here comes to zero on calculation. However, when really
ridiculously low tax rates are involved, there should be an
amount payable covering the difference in tax rates with
Canada's higher rate so these businesses do not rob us. I
repeat. What they do not pay, the taxpayers pay for them. This
is indirect robbery by means of a tax convention that is legal
and has the approval of the Minister of Finance.
I have often asked myself why we have a Minister of Finance if
he does nothing, if he does not review taxes, if he does not
plug tax loopholes and review tax conventions as we ask and if
he allows hundreds of millions out of the country as the auditor
general pointed out in 1992. Why do we pay him? Why is he there?
My second question was this: Why is he doing nothing? I had my
answer less than one year ago. We already knew this, but since
it came from sources other than the Bloc Quebecois, we were not
going to let it slip by. Why does the Minister of Finance do
nothing about tax havens, given the discrepancies I have just
mentioned? The simple answer is that, since 1981 when he
acquired Canada Steamship Lines, he has opened ten subsidiaries
of that company in other countries.
These ten subsidiaries are located in Bermuda, Liberia and
Barbados, three so-called tax havens.
1630
Prior to 1981, before the Minister of Finance took possession of
Canada Steamship Lines, these subsidiaries did not exist. He
organized his international shipping activities—because everyone
knows he is involved in shipping, it is public knowledge—by
opening subsidiaries in tax havens, with preferential tax rates,
with great flexibility regarding environmental policies, for
instance. In some of these countries, very little is respected.
There was also quite a bit of give in the labour policies.
These are not necessarily countries with stringent labour laws.
The Minister of Finance himself, who is involved in shipping, is
at the helm, has subsidiaries of Canada Steamship Lines in
so-called tax havens. Is he both judge and jury here? One might
well wonder. The public also has a right to wonder why hundreds
of millions of dollars are allowed to float away to so-called tax
havens, why this is allowed to hang fire—for that is what is
happening—, why tax conventions are maintained with countries
with tax rates ridiculously close to zero. We are the ones who
foot the bill for taxes not paid by Canadian subsidiaries in
other countries. We are probably footing the bill for Canada
Steamship Lines as well.
This is unfair. It is inequitable. There is something about it
that bothers me and that greatly bothers the public.
On December 10, 1997, a bill was introduced: Bill C-28. I can
tell you that we will not drop this matter. We asked that
special committee be struck to look into Bill C-28.
Perhaps I should remind those who have forgotten what Bill C-28
was about that its provisions supplemented somewhat tax treaties
between Canada and countries considered as tax havens.
Bill C-28 is a big, massive bill. When it was introduced at
first reading on December 10, it went almost unnoticed. At
second reading, however, when it was first debated in the House,
on February 2, 1998, the Bloc Quebecois went over this bill
several hundred pages long with a fine-tooth comb.
We dissected the bill and, toward the end, we found this rather
short passage—three little paragraphs, 12 lines altogether
over more than 400 pages of legislation—which proposed a tax
change with respect to taxes paid by steamship holding
companies. The Minister of Finance owns such a company.
What was the purpose of this change? It provided for holdings
involved in international shipping operations in countries like
Liberia, Bermuda and the Bahamas, where the finance minister's
ships and companies operate, to be exempt from paying taxes to
Revenue Canada. And no action would be taken against any of the
international shipping companies involved. There are only five
such companies in Canada, and the Minister of Finance owns one
of them.
Revenue Canada cannot retroactively prosecute these companies
for unpaid taxes.
When we pointed that out at second reading, we were told we were
wrong, that it was not the case, that it was not true. The
Minister of Finance tore up his shirt. For example, when he left
the House, he had a hard time providing an explanation for five
minutes. He was stuttering, which is unusual for him. You have
seen him during oral question period. He is so confident, he is
so sure of himself that he gives us the short shrift. Even
though every economic indicator points to a downturn in the
economy, even though all the experts are talking about a major
slowdown, and even though an increasing number of them talk
about a recession in a year from now, as far as the minister is
concerned, there is no problem. Things are just fine.
In the last two days, he has been using old quotes from the
experts, and from the Quebec premier, Mr. Bouchard, during oral
question period. These quotes are old ones dating back to the
Saskatoon meeting, a month ago. The minister uses old quotes
from experts that date back to last month, when the Bloc
Quebecois raised the alarm by saying “be careful about the
dollar free falling . The Prime Minister and the Minister of
Finance are wrong to take this lightly, to play golf and to
continue to say there is no problem, that there is no adverse
effect on the economy”.
1635
There is a risk of a slowdown in the economy. The number of jobs
could decrease. We pointed that out in early August, and they
made fun of us. Now, all the indicators point to a downward
trend. For the past three months the economy has been slowing
down, the growth rate and the GDP have been decreasing, and the
Minister of Finance is still quoting what the experts said when
we raised the alarm.
The situation has changed since then. The experts now agree with
the Bloc Quebecois. They have asked the minister to use the
surpluses generated at everyone's expense to, first, reduce
taxes, second, increase social transfers and, third, lower
employment insurance contributions, so as to give businesses and
workers a break.
But no, everything is just fine, said the minister with
assurance, no problem.
On February 2, when this apparent conflict of interest was
brought out—one that still exists—the Minister of Finance left the
House, and his assurance left him as well. He did not have much
in the way of explanations to offer, since he was the sponsor of
a bill which offered tax advantages and protection against any
recourse by Revenue Canada for payment of income and other taxes
by his shipping subsidiaries located in countries considered to
be tax havens. He was stuttering.
He referred us to Len Farber—and I recall it as if it were
yesterday—his main man for tax policy, but also what I would call
his main man for shady dealings. That same Len Farber who told
us there was no problem with the family trusts condemned by the
Bloc Quebecois as well as by the auditor general two and a half
years ago.
Members will recall the two family trusts that moved from Canada
to the United States. Two family trusts with total capital
evaluated at $2 billion, transferred over to the U.S. without a
cent of tax deducted. That same Len Farber, the great tax
expert and organizer of shady dealings for the Minister of
Finance, told us there was no problem, that everything had been
done in accordance with the taxation rules, even if the decision
at midnight to let these two trusts go without any problem had
been made on December 23, 1990. At the end of the debate, Mr.
Farber was taken down a peg because the Minister of Finance had
been obliged to table a bill to block the loopholes that had
allowed this near-illegal transfer of two two-billion dollar
trusts to the United States.
That same Len Farber is given us as a reference by the Minister
of Finance for an explanation of why there is no problem with
Bill C-28.
I met with him personally, along with one other person, in my
office on the fifth floor, and it was explained to us that there
might be a problem one day.
A minister introduces a bill which has an impact on a business
in an area in which he works on the international level. Then a
person referred by him tells us there could be a problem, a
potential conflict of interest, that we need to be careful. We
therefore began to wonder, and the fact is that the appearance
of conflict of interest remains.
The minister then referred us to his ethics counsellor, who
testified before the Standing Committee on Finance. Not only
did he say there might be an appearance of conflict of interest,
but he put it in writing. It was repeated time after time that
a public inquiry was necessary for the sake of the Minister of
Finance, that all appearance of conflict of interest needed to
be taken away, because it made no sense to maintain the
situation as it was.
The minister always maintained that there was no problem,
despite all the arguments to the contrary that were put forward.
Not often have we seen all four opposition parties present a
united front. However, on this issue, members of the Bloc
Quebecois, the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the
Progressive Conservative Party held a joint press conference to
demand an inquiry because of the appearance of a conflict of
interest.
Not only was their request turned down, but when motions were
tabled at the Standing Committee on Finance to call witnesses to
shed light on the impact of Bill C-28 on the Minister of
Finance's shipping companies, all Liberal members on the
committee voted against these motions.
The minister and the government keep arguing that there is no
conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of
interest. Yet, the Minister of Finance, who is sponsoring a bill
dealing with international shipping, is the sole owner of an
international shipping company that operates in tax havens.
1640
How can you expect changes to the tax system? How can you expect
the people opposite to be willing to review those tax
conventions signed with countries whose tax rates are much lower
than ours, and where tax evasion is possible?
I think we know the answer to that question. There is no
willingness on the part of the government. The people opposite
may be acting as judge and jury. We will not know for sure—and
there is still some doubt in my mind—until we shed some light
on Bill C-28, its impact and the appearance of a conflict of
interest involving the Minister of Finance.
Is it any wonder the minister is unwilling to review the tax
system?
For five years now, we have been asking him to review the whole
tax system in order to make it fairer. But he knew that the tax
rates of shipping companies and our relationship with tax havens
would fall under the scope of such an extensive reform, which is
why he did not seem too eager to carry it out.
When we realized what was happening, we, in the Bloc Quebecois,
decided to release starting in November 1996 two series of
studies, some 350 pages, including very serious analyses and
recommendations. In our studies, we suggested several changes to
the personal income tax system to make it fairer and to give a
tax break to middle-income Canadians who, need I remind you, have
paid most of the $20 billion in new taxes the Minister of Finance
has imposed since he was appointed in 1994. A large part of this
$20 billion was paid by middle-income Canadians.
Businesses in Quebec and Canada absorbed the other $17 billion
in tax increases.
We presented a document on personal taxes which included
critical analyses as well as recommendations. When we presented
this document, the Minister of Finance praised us in the House.
He said: “I praise the opposition for the serious work it has
done on personal taxes and for its approach to this issue. I
recognize there are problems and I recognize this document
contains some good solutions”. He then took the document and put
it at the bottom of his desk. When his desk was cleaned at the
end of the summer, the document was put away in the circular
file. We got no tax reform proposal from him.
Then we presented another document on corporate tax expenditures
in Canada. It was an analysis of the main tax loopholes used by
large businesses in Canada.
Our analysis showed that some of these were outdated but cost
billions of dollars a year to the Canadian treasury, and they
still do, with the people of Quebec and Canada having to pay the
difference in personal income tax.
We proposed abolishing certain tax expenditures and transferring
these savings to small businesses to encourage job creation: for
example, reduced payroll taxes and tax breaks for businesses
that create jobs year after year.
The Minister of Finance said: “Another serious exercise”. Right.
We can do without his praise. What we want is tax reform, and we
never got it.
The Minister of Finance was so embarrassed about not doing
anything that he decided to establish the Mintz group, a working
group presided by Mr. Mintz, a highly competent tax expert. This
group produced a large document. It took them a year as the
deadline kept being postponed.
Some recommendations are worthwhile. Others are absolutely
worthless. But to ease his conscience, the Minister of Finance
asked the Mintz group to produce an analysis of tax reform. The
group submitted its report last year. The Minister of Finance
probably put that report on a shelf or in his desk. It did the
same with it as it did with our two analytical studies on
personal and corporate taxes.
There is no political will on the other side of the House to
reform our tax system for the reasons I stated earlier.
I see what the minister has done over the last five years. If
there is anyone who follows him closely, it is me.
1645
I see that the minister was coasting. Business was good, so he
surfed, he rode the crest of economic growth. Money was coming
in—corporations and individuals have paid $37 billion in taxes
into the federal coffers over the past four and a half years—and
he collected it. He also took in surplus after surplus in
the employment insurance fund, to the tune of $6 billion a year,
during three and a half years.
He is still collecting and wants it to be legal. He will ask his
fellow ministers to be his accomplices in robbing the EI fund.
He has cut assistance to the poor and the sick.
He has cut billions from transfer payments to the provinces; by
2003, he will have cut $42 billion from transfers for social
assistance, higher education and health.
He pocketed the money. Everyone—the sick, the disadvantages,
seniors, students—tightened their belts while he collected. A
real money machine. Favourable economic conditions, combined
with cuts imposed on the poorest of the poor and cuts to health
transfers, that is what he calls sound management of our public
finances.
He could have taken positive steps instead of achieving the
exact same result through decline management. He could have
reviewed the whole tax system five years ago, when we asked him
to; it was in fact part of our platform. He could have plugged
the loopholes in the tax system with respect to tax havens.
He could have reviewed the reciprocal treaties, that is, the tax
conventions with countries considered tax havens. He could have
avoided voting in favour of bills promoting international
shipping, where he has some involvement. He could have done a
whole lot of positive things for employment, equity and tax
fairness.
But no, the Minister of Finance took advantage of the economic
situation. Money was coming in and everything was fine. He
looked like a good manager, but he is one of the worst we have
ever had. In the past, the economy was not so kind to finance
ministers. We have had Ministers of Finance who were less
draconian than this one. They would not have dared take money
from the sick, the unemployed, those on welfare, students and
the less fortunate.
There was respect at that point, which the Minister of Finance
no longer has for anyone.
Bill S-16 is a good bill, because the countries involved have
comparable tax rates. But it has given us an opportunity—and
we will seize it whenever we can—to criticize the inertia and
the lies of this government along with the measures it has not
taken but ought to have to improve the lives of people in Quebec
and Canada. These measures could still be taken, because the
surpluses generated could be used properly instead of to repay
part of the debt in a context that is very uncertain at the
moment.
I remind you that we do not oppose repayment of the debt. When
things are more sure, we will be the first to advocate using a
large part of the surplus to repay the debt.
At the moment, however, we have had three consecutive months of
economic slowdown. The Statistics Canada composite index tells
us there was no growth in August, something we have not seen for
two years. Businesses' orders are down and jobs are beginning
to stagnate in the area of trade.
It seems to me that all this together with the fact that the
Bank of Canada stupidly raised interest rates by one whole
percentage point on August 27 sent considerable shock waves
through the economy, which was already weakened after three
consecutive months of reductions in the rate of GDP growth.
We thus have all the ingredients for a major economic slowdown
in the months to come. Let us not forget that such a downturn
means fewer jobs created, a loss of wealth and less tax revenues
for the government. In short, it means hardship.
The Minister of Finance now has surpluses he should use to
stimulate economic growth. He should at least do that good deed,
given that he has not done any in the past five years. Let us
give him the honour and ask him to take our request for a
special budget seriously.
He should consider using the surpluses to stimulate domestic
economic growth by reducing taxes for middle-income people—who
have been paying a lot in the past four years—and by reducing
EI premiums, so as to give a break to businesses and workers,
who have contributed more than their fair share in the past few
years.
1650
The minister should listen to the unanimous plea made by the
premiers. They are asking him to reinvest what he shamelessly
took from federal transfers to the provinces, and to use that
money to fund social assistance, higher education and health.
That is all we are asking him to do.
Having said that, we will support Bill S-16.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member
for Palliser, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to
inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for New
Brunswick Southwest—Hepatitis C.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to be back in the House and to follow my learned
colleague from the Bloc. I listened with great interest to his
speech and his recommendations. I commend it to the finance
minister and to government members opposite.
I also want to associate myself with most of the other speakers
who have been up on the bill to talk about the relative
unimportance of Bill S-16 in comparison with the important
financial, fiscal and other needs we think we should be
discussing in the House.
Probably like many other members of parliament I conducted some
accountability sessions recently before returning to parliament
to find out what was on the minds of the constituents in
Palliser. We talked about a number of things.
We talked about the low dollar, the crisis in agriculture, how
any surplus the federal government has will be apportioned, the
lack of a national transportation system, the fact that Canada is
virtually the only country in the OECD that does not have a
national transportation system, the recent hike in interest
rates, the lack of national funding for medicare, what to do with
the EI surplus and the Tobin toll. I assure the House that
nobody talked to me at all about tax treaties between Canada and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Croatia and
the Republic of Chile.
The bill is very thin gruel by comparison to what Canadians
would like to be talking about here this afternoon. I know it is
up to the government to propose legislation. I will give it the
benefit of the doubt and suggest that this is perhaps a bit of
housekeeping that needs to be tidied from last June. We in this
caucus would certainly hope that the government moves forward in
a speedy fashion to bring in more substantive pieces of
legislation.
This caucus will be supporting Bill S-16. It is a tax treaty
bill that we do support on its merit to avoid double taxation and
to prevent fiscal evasion. The taxation rules of the treaties
need to be passed by an act of parliament in order to give them
precedence over domestic legislation, and the conventions follow
OECD models on double taxation conventions.
The bill is quite similar to several tax treaties introduced in
parliament in past years, for example Bill S-9 and Bill C-10.
Fortunately Bill S-9 is that infamous piece of legislation passed
in the 35th Parliament that was embraced, supported and promoted
by both the government and the Reform Party that offers
substantial tax breaks for Canadians who make donations to
American charities and American universities.
While it is reciprocal it is not terribly because we have about
25,000 Canadian students in the United States compared to only a
very few thousand Americans who come north for their
post-secondary education. It is a huge tax break for the wealthy
in this country. Added to it was the U.S. estate property taxes
dating all the way back to 1987, paid for not by the Americans
but by the Canadian government. This is just a reminder about the
very significant shortcomings of Bill S-9. Bill S-16 was studied
by the Senate foreign affairs committee and returned to the
Senate without amendment.
As I said before, the tax treaties are between Canada and the
Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of
Chile.
Currently we do not have tax treaties with these three countries.
1655
The government's rationale for the legislation is that it is
necessary because the provisions of the respective agreements are
sometimes different from the provisions of the Income Tax Act and
it is necessary to ensure that as much tax reporting as possible
be allowed. These agreements will override the Income Tax Act.
In addition we note the tax treaties are necessary to avoid
double taxation and to prevent fiscal evasion. They also provide
tax certainties to individuals and companies carrying on
businesses abroad, foreigners carrying on business in Canada, and
individuals receiving income from Canada who are living abroad.
Pension payments between the respective countries are treated in
the following way: Vietnam and Croatia apply withholding tax
rates limited to 15%, while Chile allows all pension payments to
be taxed only in the country where they are paid out.
Social security payments under the tax treaty provisions are
taxable only in the country in which they originate and in
accordance with domestic legislation.
In order to avoid double taxation each of the treaties also
contains specific rules which in the case of Canada refers to an
exemption for certain dividends received from foreign affiliates
and for credit in other cases. One exception is the treaty with
Vietnam which contains a rule referred to as the tax sparing
provision, ensuring that the most developed countries will not
tax away some incentives provided under the domestic legislation
of less developed countries. This is apparently to be a short
term provision.
These treaties provide for an exchange of tax information
between the revenue authorities of countries to assist them in
the fight against tax fraud and evasion. The problem, however,
is that the treaties only say that information may be exchanged
and do not say it must be exchanged or is required to be
exchanged. For example, individuals and companies which may want
to play around with the tax system run a risk of tax authorities
obtaining tax information but no guarantee.
While supporting this initiative to create better checks and
balances on taxation information matters between these countries,
however, we should encourage the same government to look further
to the concerns about large flows of investments that go
unrecorded and the level of fiscal evasion that these unrecorded
investments represent.
While I am on my feet it is important to make reference to the
Tobin tax on foreign exchange transactions which can be used in
this area. Indeed there are areas of the international economy
that require active supervision and control. That is our strong
contention. International trade and investment grow best during
the careful process of long term planning and prediction.
Uncertainty such as the current turbulence in today's financial
markets and their effects on domestic interest rates and dollar
values are too costly. The biggest challenge we have is to
regulate the financial markets so that their speed is slowed and
their powers reduced somewhat.
There has been a fair amount of talk about the Tobin tax or the
Tobin toll. I will take a few minutes during this intervention
to comment on it. The Tobin tax derives its name from James
Tobin, a Nobel prize winning economist who first proposed the
idea of a tax on foreign exchange transactions that would be
applied uniformly by all major countries. I believe he was
talking about a small amount, less than .5%, to be levied on all
foreign currency exchange transactions to deter speculation on
currency fluctuations.
While the rate would be low enough not to have a significant
effect on longer term investment where yield is higher, it would
cut into the yields of speculators moving massive amounts of
currency around the globe as they seek to profit from minute
differentials in currency fluctuation.
We might ask why the support is growing for such a tax. The
interest has grown rapidly in such a mechanism as the place of
foreign exchange transactions and financial deregulation has
accelerated significantly over the past decade. We believe that
today about $1.5 trillion U.S. is traded every day on unregulated
markets and less than 5% of this activity is related to trade in
goods and services. The remaining 95% is simply speculative
activity as traders take advantage of exchange rate fluctuations
and international interest rate differentials.
1700
This kind of financial speculation plays havoc with national
budgets, as we have seen this summer in our own country, economic
planning and the allocation of resources.
Governments and citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated by
the whimsical and often irrational activities in global financial
markets that have such an influence over national economies and
are seeking some means to curb damaging and unproductive
speculative activities.
A uniform tax on foreign exchange transactions would deter
speculation by imposing a small tax on such activities. This
would reduce the volatility of exchange rate fluctuations and
provide exporters, importers and long term investors a more
stable exchange rate in return for paying the tax.
The tax would give more autonomy to governments to set national
fiscal and monetary policies by making possible greater
differences between short term interest rates in different
currencies. Such a tax would also reinvigorate the capacity of
central banks to alter exchange rate trends by intervening in
currency markets. By cutting down on the overall volume of
foreign exchange transactions, central banks would not need as
much financial clout in order to intervene in the market.
This tax would raise revenue. By all estimates there would be
significant sums and receipts. Assumptions vary about the actual
rate of the tax, the decline in volume of trade, the amount of
trade circumventing the tax and which transactions would be
exempt; however, for illustration, assuming a conservative tax
rate of 0.2% and an effective tax base of $75 trillion U.S.
annually, the tax would yield about $150 billion annually in
receipts. Given the declining commitments to bilateral
development assistance around the world, the tax should generate
important resources to support sustainable human development.
There are two key political issues involved with putting such a
tax into place. First, it would be necessary to forge agreement
amongst the major countries to implement a uniform tax. Second,
there would have to be agreement on the collection and
distribution of the tax revenue.
Developing countries have always been much more vulnerable to
exchange rate volatility, but there is for the first time a
convergence of interest between industrialized and developing
countries as they all seek stronger government autonomy and more
effective central bank intervention.
Pressure is building on national governments, including this
one, and international institutions to support a Tobin tax from
coalitions of non-governmental organizations representing labour,
church, environment, women, youth, seniors and poverty groups as
they seek to restore some measure of democratic control of their
national economies.
Perhaps more significant is the fact that many governments face
large deficits and strong anti-tax populism among the electorate
and are looking for new sources of tax revenue that are not
politically suicidal. Such a minimal tax will not hit main
street in this case, but rather Bay and Wall Streets.
The promise of a new source of revenue will likely be the
primary motivation for reaching agreement to implement the tax.
Collection and distribution of the tax revenue is a much
trickier question. The tax rate would have to be applied
worldwide at the same rate in all markets. There would also have
to be agreement on precisely which transactions would be
subjected to the tax. Compliance would depend on the banking and
market institutions. Tracking the activity would certainly be
possible as the financial industry has the sophisticated
technology required to do this, but enforcement would rest with
the major economic powers and the international financial
institutions.
There would certainly be some strong resistance from members of
the financial sectors, some of whom have already begun to speak
out against this proposal. That is not surprising. It is
possible that some members of the financial community might
support the tax; however, the pace and volumes traded in the
markets has added a level of risk to doing business, for as much
as great profits can result from speculation, so can great losses
such as the Barings Bank fiasco of a couple of years ago.
Some experienced business people may see the value of the
limited risk of more stable markets suggesting, if not the Tobin
proposal, other strategies to limit the volatility of the current
global money system.
What we are supporting and recommending is a tax to curb
speculation in foreign currency exchange as an innovative and
fair proposal that will contribute to restoring democratic
control over our national economies and generate substantial
revenues to build a sustainable future.
Governments around the world, the UN, the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank should take the steps necessary to
implement a tax to curb currency speculation as quickly as
possible.
1705
Finally, the tax should be administered by an accountable
democratic structure, such as could be found within the United
Nations, with the revenue collected used for genuine social
development.
With that I will take my seat and, in so doing, indicate that
our caucus is in full support of Bill S-16.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill S-16, passed
by the Senate on June 2, 1998.
The purpose of Bill S-16 is to implement an agreement between
Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement
between Canada and Croatia, and a convention between Canada and
the Republic of Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and
the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on
income.
As my Bloc Quebecois colleague mentioned, our party will not
oppose the tax conventions signed between Canada and the three
countries I have just named, in so far as the purpose of these
agreements is to ensure fair and equitable tax treatment of
persons, and to encourage trade and investments between the
countries. I would point out that the term “person” includes
private individuals, corporations, trusts and any other group of
individuals.
Since the countries concerned in this bill have a rate of
taxation that is almost the same as Canada's, I will not speak
against the bill. But, while we are on the topic, I would like
to use the time I have to speak about tax conventions in force
between Canada and certain countries.
Although tax conventions avoid double taxation, they are in many
cases a source of problems and tax evasion.
Care must therefor be taken that these treaties do not open the
door to tax evasion. To that end, tax conventions must be
limited to countries with a tax rate comparable to Canada's.
If the tax conventions avoid double taxation on people's
incomes, in certain cases they are a source of problems and
encourage serious tax evasion. Although the most recent
treaties, which are based the OECD model, are relatively
standard, Canada does have some older ones with countries
considered tax havens because their individual and corporate tax
rates are low, or non-existent.
In this connection, let us keep in mind that the Auditor General
of Canada has raised this matter on more than one occasion. I
would like to quote to you what he wrote in his 1992 report.
A Netherlands Antilles subsidiary of a Canadian company had
assets of $865 million and income of $92 million not subject to
the FAPI rules.
Although the income of the foreign subsidiary has not been taxed
at a rate that approximates Canadian rates, it can be
transferred to the Canadian parent as tax-free dividends.
The auditor continues:
The offshore income is not taxed on entering Canada, but it
carries with it federal and provincial tax credits on dividends
paid out to Canadian shareholders.
1710
And he concluded:
The Canadian parent incurred the financing costs for its
investment in the subsidiary and reported a tax loss in Canada
of $29 million.
This is shameful. I could talk about many other similar
instances, in the case of the government, but it would fall on
deaf ears.
There is another danger in certain tax treaties, namely that of
being able to change tax rules in favour of friends of the
government or in favour of people in the government. I am
referring here to Bill C-28.
Members will recall that the Minister of Finance is both judge
and jury in this bill and that, should this bill become law, it
will bring millions of dollars to his company, Canada Steamship
Lines.
That outrageous stunt was discovered by my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Members will also recall that all
opposition parties supported the Bloc in this matter.
The Minister of Finance should protect the interests of Canadian
taxpayers the same way he protects his own interests.
Tax treaties and the manipulation of legislation cost billions
of dollars to taxpayers. These are billions of dollars in tax
revenues that are lost to the detriment of Canadians.
Any serious and responsible government, however, would spend a
lot of resources to assess, adjust and renegotiate the tax
treaties that cause problems, especially those most likely to
cost Canada a lot of tax money.
But guess how many public servants in the finance department are
working on these tax treaties: 100, 25, 12? No, in fact, the
finance department has only one employee working on tax
treaties, but fortunately, he works full time.
We do not question the competence and seriousness of this public
servant. Our only regret is that, in Canada, we only have one
public servant to oversee some 60 tax treaties and work on 30
more to come, when there are hundreds of millions, if not
billions of dollars, at stake.
What we have here is a government turning a blind eye to the
potential exodus of hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid
taxes.
This is a very serious issue because it undermines the overall
integrity of our tax system. With all these holes in our system,
Canada's reputation is also tarnished. It is very troublesome.
Given the billions of dollars the Minister of Finance has cut in
transfers to the provinces for hospitals, schools and social
assistance, the honest citizens of our country, who pay their
taxes to Ottawa, want their government to at least ensure that
everyone pays his fair share.
One good thing is that, in some cases, tax conventions apply to
our performers and all Canadian and Quebec artists who perform
abroad, even our athletes, like our hockey players and all the
others who are earning a living abroad.
On the other hand, we know that tax agreements are nothing new.
They have always existed and will always exist, and will even
increase in numbers with globalization.
Tax agreements establish what we call reciprocal taxation,
insofar as Canada's corporate tax rates and those of the
countries with which Canada signed these agreements are
equivalent or comparable.
1715
In closing, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tax
agreements signed between Canada and other countries when these
treaties are aimed at ensuring fair and equitable taxation of
residents and non-residents, thus encouraging trade and
investments between countries.
But make no mistake: these treaties should not open the door to
excessive tax evasion.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
bill lets Canada ratify income tax treaties with Vietnam, Croatia
and Chile. It is all part of a very important process that is
consistent with our position as a nation in embracing the global
opportunities that we have. It also addresses the challenges we
have dealing with a world whereby globalization and the forces of
international trade are making national borders less and less
relevant in terms of economic matters.
In many ways, it is extraordinarily important that we move
quickly to ratify these types of tax conventions to ensure that
we are not allowing companies, particularly in a global context,
to escape paying fair taxes and by the same token that we are not
duplicating taxes. In light of the declining role of the
nation-state in terms of its ability in many ways to effect taxes,
this type of treaty is very important.
As a background on the whole issue of trade, many of the people
in the House today will remember that in 1988 our party, the
Progressive Conservative Party and the government of Brian
Mulroney spearheaded the free trade efforts in Canada and fought
a general election openly with the Canadian public. We engaged
in a dialogue with the Canadian public in the most open sense.
That battle was won by the Progressive Conservatives. Canada has
won since then by engaging in open trading relationships with
countries around the world.
We cannot as a fairly small country in terms of our population
which numbers fewer than 30 million people, prosper and grow our
economy and employ more Canadians unless we are willing to
embrace the opportunities of free and unfettered trade. It is
that path I am proud to say our party put Canada on. As such, we
are supportive of Bill S-16.
I would also like to reference the fact that this bill was
introduced in the other place. I know there has been significant
discussion on that issue in that the other place is introducing
legislation like Bill S-16.
I would like to commend the other place and recognize the
tremendous pool of talent that we have in the other place,
particularly on the extremely technical tax treaty type of
legislation. Frankly, it would be an affront to the Canadian
taxpayer if we were not to utilize the other place by engaging
them in the very important work they are capable of. In the
Senate we have a significant pool of talent and abilities that it
would be absolutely wrong for us not to utilize.
As a trading nation, our exports last year totalled some $344
billion and our imports totalled some $329 billion. The majority
of our trade is with the United States. Naturally, it is very
important that we continue our focus on improving our trading
relationships with our largest partner, the U.S. That being the
case, it is extraordinarily important that we continue to work
and build relationships with other countries, Vietnam, Croatia
and Chile.
1720
It is interesting that we now have more trade barriers within
Canada due to interprovincial trade barriers between Newfoundland
and Nova Scotia than we do between Nova Scotia and Chile. This
points out the fundamental flaw of the whole policy of
interprovincial trade barriers which again serve to deny
Canadians an opportunity to build a comparative advantage right
here at home, but that is another issue.
The issue of trade has been a significant one as of late
particularly in light of the global currency markets and the
tumult that the currency markets have seen recently. It has been
very convenient for the government to blame commodity prices and
the “Asian crisis” for the weakness of the Canadian dollar but
it is far greater than that.
We have to recognize that there has been a secular decline in
the Canadian dollar for the past 30 years and that structural
issues need to be addressed within Canada. These include
productivity related issues like the interprovincial trade
barriers, like the fact that we have the highest rate of income
taxes of the G-7 countries, like the fact that we have a
regulatory burden that exceeds that of many of our largest
trading partners.
Those types of issues will become more and more relevant in the
future. As we sign tax conventions in the future it will be
important to recognize not only that we should sign tax
conventions but that our rates of taxes within Canada not exceed
the rates of taxation of our partners. We are handcuffing
Canadian producers and Canadian companies and individuals. We
are preventing them from producing and performing to their utmost
ability in competing globally, and that is not right.
In 1988 the Progressive Conservative government opened up the
world to Canadians when it opened up global opportunities to
Canadians. That courageous policy leap was followed by
structural changes in the Canadian economy which included the
elimination of the manufacturers sales tax and the deregulation
of financial services and transportation industries. Those were
the types of structural changes we needed then and which have
proven to be successful now. I call upon the government to
continue to make these structural changes, to hearken back to
some of the courageous policy initiatives of the previous
government and to continue on the path Canadians need to follow.
It is not enough that we open up global opportunities to
Canadians. We need to ensure that our domestic economic policies
provide the type of economy that produces the entrepreneurial
expertise and excellence that are necessary not only to compete
but to succeed in a global environment. We need to ensure
domestically in terms of tax issues that both our corporate taxes
and our personal taxes become fairer and flatter.
The Mintz report on business taxation which was introduced some
months ago was an extraordinarily well written document. It
dealt with the complex issue of corporate taxation in a holistic
and rational way. I hope the government will give a significant
amount of attention to the Mintz report and will move to simplify
and reduce both corporate and personal income taxes within
Canada.
Canadians cannot compete and succeed if we handcuff them to the
past, if we handcuff them to high rates of taxation, regulatory
burden, interprovincial trade barriers and an interventionist
economy that is simply not realistic or sustainable in a modern
global context. We need to continue to ensure that Canadians pay
their taxes and that foreign companies doing business in Canada
pay their taxes. We have to ensure those taxes are fair and not
so convoluted and complex that Canadians and Canadian companies
have to hire accountants simply to deal with their own
government.
1725
We will continue to push for increased access to global markets
from this party. I recognize members of the Liberal government
have become born again free traders. Many of the members
opposite fought vociferously against free trade agreements in
1988. However I do commend them for having learned so much from
us at that juncture and in having come so far in embracing sound
economic policies.
I would ask them again at this juncture to do what they have
done very well over the past several years which is to take
policies from Conservatives and move forward into the 21st
century with the type of economically realistic and economically
necessary policies that some believe only the Conservative Party
can introduce.
That is why it is important periodically that a Conservative
government be elected, such that those types of policies be
introduced, even if they are adopted by the government after. The
only thing worse than their having taken our policies so
blatantly and shamelessly would have been for them not to have
taken our policies because they would have substituted some of
their own which would have been far worse. In fact, the Liberal
government opposite has been a government of sound and original
ideas but unfortunately its original ideas are seldom sound and
its sound ideas are never original.
It is encouraging to see that the government has come so far,
even in terms of the deficit reduction issue. That was an issue
we addressed very clearly by reducing the deficit as a percentage
of GDP by half during the period of time that our government was
in power and by reducing program spending growth from 15% to
zero.
That was the kind of courage the previous Conservative
government demonstrated before fiscal responsibility became cool.
Back in 1979 Joe Clark introduced a budget that was defeated
because it was too fiscally responsible for the time. Today even
the New Democrats talk fiscal responsibility. It has become a
buzzword.
In any case, we have no problem with Bill S-16 and will be
supporting it today. We just hope that in the future we will
continue to see not only income tax convention legislation but
also the types of structural changes made in the Canadian
domestic economy that allow Canadians to compete successfully
abroad and to not just compete but to succeed and to prosper in
the 21st century.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order.
There have been some discussions among all the parties and with
everyone's co-operation, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
would be the last speaker on this bill and in fact would conclude
his remarks no later than 5.35 p.m. If that is reasonable to all
members here, then we would proceed with the debate and we would
ask that the question be put at that time.
The Deputy Speaker: As a clarification, I assume that the
question will be put on the motion and it is understood that
there would be no questions or comments at the conclusion of the
remarks by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
Is it agreed that we proceed as outlined by the chief government
whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill S-16 which deals
with double taxation with the countries of Vietnam, Croatia and
Chile. This is very important.
Double taxation has often been seen as a real hamstring to our
private sector. The removal of double taxation also enables
developing countries in particular to develop a stronger economy
in the future. It also enables companies in other countries to
work effectively.
The end effect of the removal of double taxation actually lowers
the taxation levels for the private sector so the private sector
can engage effectively in these countries. We should strive to
ensure that taxation occurs only in one country rather than two.
1730
In the case of South Africa, the removal of double taxation
which took place a few years ago was very effective and helped to
stimulate investment in that country in a very effective way. It
all boils down to a way of improving development in developing
countries. It also helps the neediest people in those countries.
The government needs to address the aspect of taxation within
our country. As we know, the taxation levels here are probably
the greatest barrier to the ability of our private sector to be
competitive. In comparing our situation to that of the United
States, couples with two incomes are actually earning 44% more
take-home pay than an equivalent couple in Canada.
Businesses are labouring under a tax level that is at least 13%
greater in Canada. It hamstrings the ability of our private
sector to be competitive with countries down south and, as a
result, has contributed to brain drain and the inability of our
private sector to be as aggressive as it could be.
I would ask the government to look at the egregious rules and
regulations that hamstring our private sector. We continue to
put rule after rule after regulation on the books without taking
a step back and looking at whether the rules and regulations are
necessary. It would be wonderful if the finance committee
created a subcommittee and utilized the private sector and its
experience to look at the rules and regulations that exist on the
books and remove the ones that are ineffective. By doing this we
would greatly improve the nimbleness and efficiency of the
private sector and, by doing so, enable the private sector to
hire more individuals and be increasingly competitive in the
global economy.
We need to look more carefully at research and development.
Research and development is a cornerstone and a pillar of our
economy. Right now we are at the bottom of the barrel of all
OECD nations.
Education needs to be spruced up. We need to look at how
education can better reflect the needs of our economy in the
future. I would ask the government to work with its provincial
counterparts in developing a think tank to ensure that our
post-secondary institutions and students can better understand
the needs of the future and thereby get skills.
There is also room for looking at the European experience in
non-post-secondary university type settings where people can get
the technical skills that are going to be required in the future.
This does not require a university education. The technical
skills are desperately needed in our country today and will be
needed in the future. The government can certainly take a
leadership role along with its provincial counterparts in
creating institutions which will teach technical skills to our
youth.
This bill comes from the Senate. Our party has spoken at length
about the Senate and the desire of many members of the House, as
well as many others, to have a democratic Senate. Senators have
recently been appointed by the Prime Minister. If the hallmark
of democracy is the ability of the people to vote for their
representatives in this House, the Senate fails.
There are many good people in the Senate, but there are some who
are not pulling their weight. It would benefit all members of
the Senate, the good ones in particular, if we were to have an
elected Senate. If we had an elected Senate people from all
across the country, the best and the brightest, could become
candidates. The Canadian people could then decide. We would have
a much more vigorous Senate. It would truly be a House of sober
second thought which could more effectively work with members of
parliament to provide the best legislation to Canadians.
In closing, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the
hon. member for Surrey North, which reads:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“this House declines to give second reading to Bill S-16, an act
to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic
of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of
Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of
fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, since the
principle of the bill which was proposed by the unelected Senate
fails to address the matter of the Prime Minister's refusal to
respect the democratic rights of Albertans when he appointed a
former Tory MP to the Senate.”
1735
The Deputy Speaker: I can give the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and his colleagues high marks for
persistence, but I am afraid this motion falls under the rulings
that I have given twice previously today in respect of its
admissibility. I refer the hon. member, in case he missed the
earlier reference, to citation 568 of Beauchesne's, which states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to
the question on which the amendment is proposed.
I am afraid that the amendment moved by the hon. member does not
deal with the substance of this bill. It is not relevant to
taxation matters. It appears to be relevant to the origins of
the bill which, in the opinion of the Chair, are irrelevant in
accordance with the dicta contained in Beauchesne's citation.
Accordingly, I rule the amendment out of order.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I call for the resuming of
debate and in view of the widespread interest that members have
expressed in wishing to speak on this bill, perhaps the Chair
could assist the House by indicating the order in which the Chair
intends to call hon. members in the debate today. This in no way
prejudices those who might come later. If there are problems
with this list and members wish to speak to the Chair about
changing it, I will certainly entertain discussion on it.
I propose to call the hon. member for Whitby—Ajax, the hon.
member for Berthier—Montcalm, the hon. member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, the hon. member for Surrey North, the
hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, the hon. member for
West Nova, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General, in that order.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to offer my strong support to my colleague, the
hon. member for Mississauga East.
This is the third time my colleague has brought the present
system of concurrent sentencing forward to the House dealing
with serial predators and their sentencing. She should be
congratulated for her perseverance and dedication to this issue.
It is time for us to deal with this issue now and to delay no
longer.
My colleague was successful because of the efforts of 166
members of this parliament, from all parties, who signed this
bill and made it a votable item. They should be congratulated
for taking such a very strong stand.
Bill C-251, entitled “An act to amend the Criminal Code and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences)”,
provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences where a
person commits multiple serial offences.
1740
This bill is about making our streets safer for all Canadians.
This bill is about punishing serious offenders in such a way that
their sentence accurately reflects the gravity of their offence.
This bill is about restoring public confidence in our criminal
justice system. There is a very popular saying that goes
something like this “In order for justice to be done, it must be
seen to be done”. When a serial murderer or rapist is sentenced
as though only one crime was committed, justice has not been seen
to have been done and therefore it has not been done.
When a system that is designed to protect the public falls into
such disrepute and loses the respect and confidence of the
public, action must be taken. This bill is about showing the
proper respect to victims and showing the proper respect to their
families, whose suffering is so often underestimated.
I believe that the primary function of our criminal justice
system is the prevention of crime and the protection of society.
Unfortunately the system cannot protect everyone all the time.
People do get hurt. They are wronged. They are victimized. But
once an offender is apprehended and convicted, sentencing is
required.
There are different views with respect to the purpose of a
criminal sentence. The prevailing opinion among justice and
correctional officials is, in my view, appropriately focused on
rehabilitating the offender and ensuring that he or she does not
commit another offence upon their release from prison. We cannot
lock up everyone and throw away the key. However, I believe the
focus is so single-minded that it neglects other critical
aspects. Very seldom do we hear the word punish.
In the case of repeat murderers and rapists I would think most
Canadians are not interested in rehabilitation. They do not want
to see these people on the streets again. I agree with them.
Canadians must be permitted to express their outrage at and
condemnation of such brutal acts of violence. Our current system
of sentencing repeat offenders does not serve this need.
Concurrent sentencing provides one sentence for multiple crimes.
What is left to deter criminals from committing further
atrocities once they have committed their first?
To put the current situation bluntly, we offer volume discounts
for rapists and murderers in Canada. The current sentencing
regime cheapens life. Virtually no regard is given to the lives
of the individual victims.
Much of what I am saying has been said before in this House, but
it needs repeating. The pain and suffering and the death of a
second, third or eleventh victim is of no consequence to the
court. The minimum penalty always applies, even for the most
prolific killers.
The majority of murderers and serial sex offenders are returned
to neighbourhoods, often without publicity or warning. Trials
and convictions attract public attention and the public is
usually lulled into the hoax that a life sentence means life.
They have read it in the morning paper.
But a life sentence is not a life sentence. Ten years later
they actually hear the truth. The parole board has short-changed
justice, written off the victims as if yesterday's news, just to
free up a bunk for the next serial killer.
But Canadians are gradually catching on to this deception of
life imprisonment. Half of those convicted of second degree
murder are sentenced to life and are released in less than 12
years. For first degree murder the median has historically been
14 years. Life only means life for the murder victim who
is not there to protest his or her sentence and is never eligible
for parole.
My own family knows too well about the loss of a loved one,
knowing that the perpetrator of the crime, the fellow who took
the life of a young officer in the prime of his life, who left a
wife and three children, is eligible for parole within the next
year. Kitty and her children will never have Vernon back. Life
was life for Vernon.
The predator has dealt a life sentence to the victim's family.
For them the comforting illusion of safety in our streets has
been shattered. They have to live with the stark truth that the
only law that protects them is the law of averages, the chance
that none of the predators roaming our communities will get
around to them again.
1745
The sad truth is that judges already have the power to sentence
consecutively but they simply are not doing it. I say this is
very sad because although judges are charged with applying the
law in a fair and impartial manner they should also reflect
community interests and values in doing so. Judges claim to be
doing this when dealing with issues of public nudity and
obscenity. Why when it comes to sentencing serial rapists and
murderers do they not apply the same?
It is up to parliamentarians and lawmakers to send a message
that the courts are not. It is that predators will be punished
and punished severely. There are no mitigating circumstances for
a predator. There is no need to rehabilitate a predator. No
predator is a safe addition to any neighbourhood, no matter what
therapists say. Predators belong in prison permanently.
Some will argue that consecutive sentencing serves no purpose
other than revenge. If a predator knows that he is going to jail
for the rest of his life, that he will never have a chance at
parole, that he will die in prison, he may think twice. If the
prospect of consecutive sentence does not act as a deterrent in a
specific case, it will serve to express more genuinely the
revulsion, horror and outrage of the Canadian people. It will
also serve to show the family and friends of the victim that
their government cares about them.
These two reasons together or individually are sufficient to
justify consecutive sentencing. Our institutions are very
responsive to lawyers, lobbyists, inmates and advocates.
Criminals can rely on the system that orphaned the victims. The
murder victim has no representative, has no lobbyist, has no
lawyer because the victim is dead. The only argument we will
hear about the victim's lost rights will come from the family and
from people who recognize the injustice and the obscenity of the
current system.
Why are we offering a Wal-Mart two for one sale for criminals
committing serial crimes? Commit one, get another one free, a
third one, a fourth one. This has to stop. Each life is
valuable. Sentencing must reflect the value of each individual
life. Currently the second victim means nothing. Very simply,
we are offering a bulk rate deal to murderers and rapists. One
25 year so-called life sentence is a penalty for premeditated
murder no matter how many victims. A mere seven years in prison
is the maximum parole ineligibility for a rapist no matter how
many victims.
I am proud to support Bill C-251 and I urge other members of the
Liberal caucus and members from the other side to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the bill brought forward by the member
for Mississauga East.
To start with, I too would like to congratulate her on her bill
since it opens up a part of the Criminal Code. It is important
to review it, check a few things and eventually perhaps go along
with the member.
I want to say right away that I am in favor of the bill and its
being scrutinized by the committee to see—I will go into it in
more detail later—whether the bill is in keeping with the
Criminal Code, the case law, the Canadian way and especially the
Quebec way.
I will remind listeners that the bill provides for the
imposition of consecutive sentences where a person commits
sexual assault and another offence arising out of the same
events or where a person is already serving another sentence at
the time.
Moreover, the bill amends the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act. This amendment provides that a person
sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree or second degree
murder is not eligible for parole until the person has served,
in addition to the portion of sentence that the person must
serve for murder, one third or a maximum of seven years of any
other sentence imposed on the person in respect of an offence
arising out of the same events. The mandatory portion of each
life sentence imposed on a person who is convicted of a second
murder must be served consecutively before the person is
eligible for parole.
This is all very technical, but those who are somewhat familiar
with the Criminal Code will have understood what I said. I will
try to shed some light on this during my allotted time.
1750
The seriousness of the offence is one element I take into
account when I look at a bill, especially a private member's
bill. I try to see what exactly is the intent. This bill deals
with the most heinous crimes. Therefore every member of the
House should pay close attention to it.
If murder has as a consequence the taking of a life, sexual
assault defiles the victim forever. One must look at this
offence with a very careful eye and try to see the parallel that
exists between various criminal offences.
Sentences given for those crimes must reflect the seriousness of
the offence, in light of the circumstances.
Imposing a fair and adequate sentence is difficult in that we
have to make sure it takes into account the characteristics of
the offender, protects the interests of the community, which
largely depend on the values it cherishes in a given period, and
meets the victim's need for protection and reparation.
The sentencing judge must make sure the sentence is
proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the degree of
responsibility of the offender. Bill C-251 raises a fundamental
question: Does Canadian criminal law deal adequately with
murders and sexual offences, given the seriousness of these
crimes? This is an extremely important question, and it deserves
an answer.
Incidentally, I would like to tell the House that I am currently
working on a bill similar to the one introduced by the hon.
member, because I am also of the opinion that sexual offences
are very serious. I hope she will return the favour and support
my own bill. My goal is to allow judges to take the
psychological damage inflicted on victims into consideration in
sentencing.
Having said that, I think we could indeed improve the situation
now prevailing as far as sentencing for sexual offences goes,
because these offences are very serious.
But the Criminal Code already allows judges to impose sentences
to be served consecutively. This is in section 718.3(4) of the
Criminal Code. This provision deals with sentences for offences
in general and not sexual offences specifically.
That is probably why the hon. member felt she had to introduce
Bill C-251.
She is probably right, and we should add this special provision
relating to sexual offences so that judges not only may but are
in fact required to impose sentences to be served consecutively.
When I say we should see whether that provision is compatible
with the Criminal Code or with Canada's case law and way of
doing things, I mean that we should see whether this bill
deprives judges of a degree of discretion they now have.
At first glance, I honestly and sincerely think “sexual
assault” should be added, to send a signal to the public to show
that we are taking sexual offences seriously, given that such
offences are committee every day, are serious and all too often
involve children, who are scared for life by such vicious crimes.
In the end, it is society that pays for this at the
psychological, medical and other levels.
This clause could include specific provisions on sexual assault,
so as to force judges to impose consecutive rather than
concurrent sentences as they sometimes do. However, this would
take away some of the discretionary power of the courts.
1755
I have some concerns in this respect. I am in favour of the
bill. I would like the committee to give very serious
consideration to the bill as a whole to determine if the changes
proposed by the hon. member would not in fact hinder the smooth
operation of the judiciary and infringe on the discretionary
powers currently enjoyed by judges.
If we look at how sexual assault and sexual offences against
children, women or minors are dealt with by the courts across
Canada, in Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces, I think
judges do not take this kind of offence seriously enough.
There are cases where certain comments made by a judge lead us
to question the sentence imposed by that judge.
With this amendment, when there is more than one offence, the
judge would have to impose consecutive sentences and we would
then be sure that the accused would serve all his time.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that offences against the person
must not be taken lightly. Our criminal justice system must
consider the seriousness of offences such as sexual assault and
murder.
We also believe that the establishment of a rule with regard to
consecutive sentences for sexual assault should be studied by
the Standing Committee on Justice in light of our concern not to
unduly limit the discretionary powers of the courts.
The courts are still in the best position to analyze individual
cases, but I think that sometimes we have to force the hand of
justice. We do it from time to time in certain pieces of
legislation. As legislators, it is our duty to do so.
The Bloc Quebecois still wants to issue a word of caution—and
it is not necessarily the member but rather the Reform Party
that has a tendency to do that—to those who could be tempted to
legislate on the basis of an exceptional case such as the tragic
case of Clifford Olson.
The justice system as a whole must not be judged on the basis of
a few exceptional cases.
Again, if we look at the Canadian justice system as a whole, it
is a good system. It works well. Naturally, we can try to
improve it and I think Bill C-251 is a step in the right
direction.
That is why I will co-operate in committee to see to it that this
bill is adopted or even to improve it if necessary.
[English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to rise this afternoon to speak in
full and complete support of Bill C-251 and to salute the efforts
of our hon. colleague, the member for Mississauga East. I
believe the member has done Canadians a great service with the
bill and I am pleased that it has been deemed a votable item.
Our colleague's sincerity and dedication when it comes to issues
of justice, sentencing and working with victims of crime are
recognized and appreciated, for perseverance and raising
awareness of this issue and her devotion and commitment to
helping victims of crime are qualities for every Canadian to
admire.
Bill C-251, as members will know, provides for the imposition of
a consecutive sentence where a person commits sexual assault and
another offence arising out of the same event or where the person
is already serving another sentence at the time.
The bill's summary clearly states:
—a person sentenced to life in prison for first degree murder or
second degree murder is not eligible for parole until the person
has served, in addition to the portion of sentence that the
person must serve for murder, one-third or a maximum of seven
years or any other sentence imposed—in respect of an offence
arising out of the same events or that person is already serving.
The mandatory portion of each life sentence imposed on a person
who is convicted of a second murder must be served consecutively
before the person is eligible for parole.
1800
As I see it, you do the time if you do the crime. It is
important to point out that both victims groups and the Canadian
Police Association support the bill.
As a citizen of Canada and as a member of parliament, I am fully
aware of the tremendous service men and women in law enforcement
provide us as they discharge their responsibility to protect and
defend our lives, liberty and property. We honour them and offer
encouragement.
Law enforcement officers are the most unselfish and dedicated
public servants in society. We have all heard over and over
again that each day as they go about discharging their
responsibilities law enforcement officers place their lives on
the line.
People should not just pay lip service to this statement. The
citizens whom they protect should be conscious that many times
law enforcement officers experience a tremendous amount of
frustration. They are required to work within a criminal justice
system which at times is too inefficient and too technical to
handle the various examples of crime in society. Regrettably on
terrible occasions they make the supreme sacrifice for the people
they serve. They know that Bill C-251 would help keep hardened
criminals off the streets. In my capacity as an elected member
of parliament I want to be able to give them the tools to work
with and within.
Each day we are reminded with vivid reality that we live in an
imperfect world, one beset with many problems such as poverty,
injustice, disease, war and most assuredly crime.
Some who are skeptical would say that this is nothing new, that
these problems are part of the human condition and will be with
us as long as men and women remain on earth. They will get
caught up in the magnitude of the world's dilemmas and with
fatalistic acquiescence. They will sit and do nothing,
justifying this inactivity with the platitude “I am just one
person. I can't change the world”.
The member for Mississauga East is doing her part, and I may add
doing it well. Without individual action by citizens the
problems may continue to worsen as more people become victims of
crime. There is no greater satisfaction than that which comes
from the feeling that one has contributed something good to
society, that one has given in the support of others. The
profession that gives an opportunity to achieve this is law
enforcement work.
Bill C-251 will give Canadians and victims of crime perhaps some
additional peace of mind than otherwise would occur. It will
correct a shameful volume discounts to rapists and murderers
through concurrent sentencing. The bill is about reasonable and
required change that every major victims group is demanding.
Bill C-251 has three important objectives: to reduce
inhumanities to families of victims, to restore some truth in
sentencing and to stop gambling lives away on the chance that a
multiple murderer or serial murderer will not attack again.
What is punishment? Punishment is a detriment imposed for
committing a crime. The four widely accepted purposes of
punishment are deterrence, retribution, incapacitation and
rehabilitation.
During the last 20 years many American states have shifted away
from indeterminate sentencing. The Canadian Sentencing
Commission issued a 592-page report in 1987 that found abundant
evidence of unwarranted disparities in sentences as judges took
different approaches to similar cases.
1805
The bill is important due to the shift away from indeterminate
sentencing. It seems to reflect a reduction in confidence in
rehabilitation as a purpose of punishment and a reduction in
confidence of parole boards in deciding when an offender should
be released.
When sentencing an offender for multiple offences in Canada the
primary focus is on the global sentence that results from the
judge's discretion. Some offences, most notably prison escapes
and breach of conditional sentence, require mandatory consecutive
sentences under subsection 718.3(5) of the Criminal Code of
Canada. However throughout the focus remains on the global
sentence to be imposed.
Bill C-251 would change that for the better. As my colleague
from Mississauga East stated during debate on June 4, 1996:
Concurrent sentencing cheapens life. The lives of individual
victims are erased from the sentencing equation. The suffering,
the pain and the death of the second, third or eleventh victim is
of no consequence to the courts.
I wonder if we could apply that kind of sentencing if we had a
parking ticket. If we got one or ten, would the court see fit to
only charge us for one?
As well, families must continue to attend parole hearings,
reliving and rehashing pain, anguish and grief over the loss of a
loved one. Let us support victims of crime. Let us support our
law enforcement officers. We as members of parliament have an
important role to play with this unique privilege we have been
bestowed by our electorate.
Changing and improving legislation is a vital part of that role,
and each of us take it very seriously. That is why private
members' hour is crucial to our effectiveness as members of the
House. Individual members have the opportunity, free from party
constraints, to express their views and concerns on behalf of
their constituents, their conscience and their genuine interest
in trying to make some positive changes.
It is with that spirit that I urge all hon. members to support
Bill C-251 and the exceptional work on this issue by our
colleague from Mississauga East.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak to Bill C-251, an act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
I admire the hon. member for Mississauga East for her tenacity
toward this legislation. This is the third time she has
attempted to bring this legislation to fruition. She has
indicated that she has the support of 166 members of the House,
including support from all parties. That would appear to be
sufficient to reach a majority, but I will not be holding my
breath. We have seen how government members soon forsake
conscience and common sense once they receive the marching orders
from the front benches.
In 1993 the Liberals campaigned on a promise to give
backbenchers more weight in the government by providing MPs with
a greater role in drafting legislation. More free votes were to
be allowed. Now, almost five years later, we still do not have
successful private members' legislation in the area of criminal
justice. The House can appreciate my scepticism.
The House may also appreciate my concern over the
inconsistencies of the hon. member for Mississauga East and many
of her colleagues on that side of the House. In Bill C-41 in
1995, when they voted in favour of conditional sentencing, one
must assume they did what the former minister of justice
instructed them to do.
Just last week I note another sexual offender received
absolutely no jail time for sexual assault and forcible
confinement. This example is but just one of the most recent.
There have been many other cases where sexual offenders have
received the benefit of the Liberal Bill C-41 get out of jail
free legislation.
On the one hand the proposer of the bill before us seeks
increased sentencing for sexual offenders, but on the other hand
she appears to say that it is okay for sexual offenders to serve
their time at home. No wonder Canadians have lost faith in their
politicians.
When this legislation was last debated in this place the then
parliamentary secretary to solicitor general clearly put the
writing on the wall for government members. He stated:
I am concerned that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, may take away
flexibility and discretionary power from our courts and add to
the already heavy burden of correctional bodies, when it comes to
administering sentences.
1810
He appears concerned about the administrative cost of keeping
violent offenders in prison. We could only wish the Minister of
Finance would express the same concern over the cost of
administering the GST.
Later the then parliamentary secretary stated:
The proposed amendments, however, invoke punitive measures that
far exceed the restrictions now set out in the Criminal Code and
Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as threaten
freedoms defended by the Charter, as I mentioned.
I suggest the word freedoms has no place in any discussion of
sanctions for criminal activity. Here again we have an example of
the Liberals' paralyzing fear of the charter.
Later on in his speech he added:
That was a typical Liberal response that government knows best
and the Canadian public is too stupid to decide for itself.
The parliamentary secretary was speaking for the front bench of
the government. In this place there is little in the way of free
votes for the government side. There is little likelihood of a
substantive role in drafting necessary legislation by any
backbencher, even those on the government side.
The parliamentary secretary once again used the charter as a
reason for failing to respect the desires and needs of Canadians.
It was noteworthy that he failed to explain just how the charter
protects our most heinous criminals from receiving consecutive
sentences. It was also noteworthy when he stated that these
proposals did not reflect the best interests of the Canadian
public.
Bill C-251 proposes to ensure that those offenders who commit
sexual assault and another offence receive consecutive sentences.
It ensures that murderers are not eligible for parole until they
have served the sentence for the murder plus a stated minimum for
any other sentence imposed.
The parliamentary secretary talked about the best interests of
Canadians. I think he may only be thinking of the best interests
of our criminals. He is certainly not thinking about the victims
of those crimes and he is not thinking about the safety of our
communities.
Just this past week another university study into sexual
violence severely criticized our criminal justice system for not
seriously dealing with this issue. It is more concerned with the
interests of criminals than it is with the needs of victims or
public safety. The study found that only 13% of child molesters
and 30% of sexual assaults of adults result in sentences of more
than two years. This was compared to robbers who in 53% of cases
receive more than two years. Children and women are most often
the victims of sexual offences but the government is doing little
to address this anomaly. Perhaps this private member's bill will
help to correct that failure.
Consecutive sentencing would provide incentive for our justice
system to pursue a complete record of our offenders. Too often
crown prosecutors proceed only with one or two charges against
the accused. There is usually only one cumulative sentence so
there is nothing to be gained from proceeding with multiple
offences, but this results in a major travesty and injustice at
the time of parole.
Parole is based strictly on convictions. For example, Larry
Takahashi was granted day passes even though he had admitted to
sexually assaulting up to 30 women and police believed he was
responsible for up to 100 sexual assaults. As far as the parole
system was concerned he was responsible for 11 sexual assaults on
seven women. When it came time to review his record for day
parole purposes, only the convictions were considered.
Consecutive sentencing would bring about truth in sentencing.
Multiple offenders would be distinguished from the one-time
offender. There would be more honesty in sentencing. Presently
our judges impose, for example, a one year sentence for a sexual
assault. The victims and the public are deceived into believing
the offender actually serves one year in custody, but as we all
know parole takes place for every offence.
Offenders such as in this example often get out in a few days or
a few months. The judges say they do their job by applying an
appropriate sentence for the crime, but then the parole system
gets involved and officials have the responsibility to get the
prisoner out of incarceration at the earliest legislated
opportunity.
The parole system states that they are just doing their job of
following the rules toward release, but there is no truth in
sentencing. Few if any actually serve the full court imposed
sentence of incarceration. Even our most heinous murderers get
reviews of their life sentences at 15 years pursuant to section
745. A notorious child killer whose name I will not say in this
place murdered 11 children but was sentenced as though he had
killed but one.
As we speak, a section 745 hearing is in progress in Vancouver
for a man who killed three bar patrons and then drove to an RCMP
detachment where he murdered the constable behind the counter.
He too was sentenced as though he had taken but one life.
1815
If I might add, in that case the killer allegedly shot another
constable in the police detachment but was never prosecuted for
that because there was no reason for it as there would be no
difference in the sentence. The message to the criminal: kill as
often as you wish, only the first one counts, the rest are
freebies. The message to the victims: only the first life is
important, the rest are inconsequential.
As to the specifics of Bill C-251, I wonder why the hon. member
restricted her bill to section 271, the sexual assault offence.
If her bill is successful I can only wonder how things will work
when we have an offender who commits a sexual assault with a
weapon pursuant to section 272 plus other offences. Will the
crown proceed with the lesser offence of mere sexual assault with
the hope that the sentence will be added to those for the other
crimes or will the crown proceed with section 272 and hope that
its sentence alone will meet society's objective? It appears as
though our crowns may become professional gamblers in our courts.
I also wonder why the hon. member proposing this bill restricts
it to sexual assault and murder. She does not include
manslaughter, instances of use of a firearm in the commission of
an offence and she does not include aggravated assault.
To sum up, I will support this member's initiative but I
seriously question whether her own party members will have the
fortitude to support their conscience rather than meekly
following the orders from the front bench.
I support this bill as a start. It is certainly a long way from
providing sufficient protection within our communities. It is a
long way from being totally honest with our citizens. It is also
a long way from attending to the interests of victims. However,
I urge all members of the House to support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today in the House in support of this
worthwhile bill, a bill the member for Mississauga East has been
pushing for years and which is needed in today's society.
[English]
I know this member has tried on now three occasions to see that
this legislation gets passed or at least recognized and
thoroughly treated by parliament. It is an
honour to know this member of parliament who subscribes to the
view that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
It is with that that I am here today to once again speak to an
issue that I believe seems to have a consensus developing in the
House, at least making sure that this issue gets thoroughly
debated not only in the House but in the justice committee .
I ask hon. members to consider that this is not really a
partisan issue. We can play the usual jousting between both
sides of the House. We all have different philosophies and we
certainly have different dynamics within our constituencies.
However, one thing we can agree on is the value of a human life.
This bill addresses very squarely, whether it be in the area of
criminal justice or social understanding of humankind, the need
to respect and to not denigrate the value of every human being.
My previous colleagues, including my colleague from
Whitby—Ajax, spoke at length about the problems inherent with
the system that gives volume discounts for serial murderers.
[Translation]
I am pleased to see that the Bloc critic has taken a stand on
criminal offences of a sexual nature. I totally agree with him
and I hope this will result in a piece of legislation the House
can proud of and which we will be able to review together in
order to come up with a better criminal justice system.
1820
[English]
This summer the men and women who represent our front lines
were assembled in at least three locations across the
country to commemorate the passing of one of their own. In my
riding of Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge we mourned the tragic loss of
Det. William Hancox.
I do not know whether we have had an opportunity to recognize
that but I would like to take the time now to make sure the House
of Commons hears his name and the great effort he made on behalf
of keeping this nation a secure nation.
I know there are people in the gallery today representing our
finest in this country. They are not here to simply hear about
the outcome of this bill but to understand that there is a
relationship between the need for public safety, the security of
the person and the whole definition of a social contract on which
this whole issue seems to rest.
It is for those reasons that I applaud the attempts of my hon.
colleague from Mississauga East. I applaud the efforts of so
many of the victims rights groups in the country who have been
crying out for a voice and who ask above all that we not play
this simple game of politics, of divide and conquer, or to hide
behind certain laws, customs or traditions.
Common sense dictates that this House today consider the impact
it has on the security of the individual and the value of life.
The status quo is clearly not acceptable and it is in that regard
that the wisdom of the subcommittee on private members' business
chose wisely for the first time to make this bill votable.
This bill is certainly deserving of an opportunity to be treated
by the justice committee. I have some difficulty with the
interpretation of where this could go and I would probably want
to ask for a clarification of a statement that was made by the
Chair a little earlier, that this bill be referred to the finance
committee. I seek unanimous consent of the House, seconded by
the member for Huron—Bruce, to amend the direction of this bill
from the finance committee to the justice committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): For the information
of the member, the bill is going to the justice committee, not to
the finance committee, as the member thought.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you for that clarification. I
know this bill is very important and we want to make sure there
is absolutely no equivocation and that this bill does proceed in
the direction it so clearly deserves to go in.
I do not think this bill is about vengeance. I do not think
this bill is about retribution. I do not believe this bill was
born out of some idea of vindictiveness. I believe rather that
this bill has everything to do with the value we in this House
and we as Canadians place on human life.
The bill itself, as I suggested earlier, comes from an evolution
of a number of thoughts that have been brought forth. It is easy
to talk about the Clifford Olsons of this world, the Paul
Bernardos, the Denis Lorties, but I think we need to look at
something a little more substantial about the role of the victim
in terms of the system that currently exists.
As I indicated earlier, the status quo is not acceptable. My
hon. colleague from Whitby—Ajax indicated that second degree
murderers sentenced to life are released after less than 12
years. The median for first degree murderers is only 14 years.
I do not believe anybody in their right state of mind would
accept that a human life is only worth such a trivial time behind
bars.
It is for this reason that I believe there is an opportunity for
us as members of parliament to recognize the great gulf that
exists between common sense, the view of the public, the view of
so many legalists who have pronounced themselves on this.
1825
In terms of ensuring that we have a sentencing system that
reflects the seriousness of the crimes that are committed, it
seems only reasonable that if you commit one murder, one rape,
one assault you should serve the time for each.
It is not a question of simply the trite statement if you can't
do the time, don't do the crime. It is rather a question of
ensuring that an offence against an innocent human being is
treated adequately and appropriately. In that context there is
no need to talk about tying the hands of judges. I saw in
Burnaby, B.C. last year with the hon. member and so many other
members in the House the spectacle as a result of 745 of Clifford
Olson being allowed to manipulate the system. The judge did not
have in his mind the desire to make sure this individual would
never see the light of day and that he would spend his time
behind bars.
This is not about revisiting capital punishment. It is rather
an important step ahead in recognizing and in modernizing our
justice system to reflect accurately the angst of victims, the
sensibility of their families and the reasonability of all
Canadians.
[Translation]
I am very proud to be here today. As I said the last time I
spoke to Bill C-274, moved by the member for Mississauga East,
this issue will brought back to the House as long as it is not
willing to acquiesce to it.
[English]
I assure members it is a good bill. It deserves our support.
Let us support the bill. Let us get the bill to committee and
let us protect Canadians.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, may
I just correct the last speaker. He referred to Burnaby. I would
like to correct that to Surrey. Surrey is my town and I cannot
let that go.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today on Bill C-251, an act to amend the
Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
This is an extremely important piece of legislation and I salute
the hon. member for Mississauga East for bringing forward the
bill despite the opposition from her own government. We need more
initiative and free thinking from both Liberals and Reform instead
of their respective leadership constantly cracking the whip.
Let us hope the hon. member for Mississauga East will not face
the same wrath from the Liberal leadership as the hon. members
for North Vancouver and Nanaimo—Alberni had to face in September
at Banff.
With respect to Bill C-251 this is very timely when one looks at
how the Liberal government has responded to the various justice
issues this week in the House. Yesterday we witnessed the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice defend the
faint hope clause by proclaiming I am proud to be a bleeding
heart Liberal.
On Tuesday we witnessed Liberal after Liberal stand up to defend
Bill C-68, the false hope law, by criticizing law abiding gun
owners as being part of some vast right wing conspiracy. I am
nonetheless encouraged to see a member from the Liberal benches
stand up for what she believes in with this bill. I know she has
been working very hard over the past number of years to bring
this matter forward in the form of a votable motion. She has
stated in the past that Bill C-251 is based on three simple
principles: inhumanity and how to avoid it, improving humanity
toward victims, and certainly to protect us against those who
offend.
My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus and I share
the deep concern of the hon. member for how difficult it is for
victims of crime to face the justice system and how far too easy
it is for them to lose faith.
Our party's justice and solicitor general critic, the hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, has proposed a number of
solid initiatives to ensure that our laws better reflect the
needs of victims and their families.
1830
Parliamentarians now have an opportunity to support this
important piece of legislation to help improve our justice
system, to help restore the confidence of Canadians in the system
and more important, to improve the protection of society from
violent offenders. These are very positive suggestions the hon.
member has made.
Bill C-251 provides for truth in sentencing, something we must
see. It is a very brief, straightforward and easy to understand
amendment to the Criminal Code. This is something which all
members of this House should encourage.
When it comes to the issue of sexual assault and section 271 of
the Criminal Code, there is a strong need for this amendment.
There is a need that sentences which are imposed by judges be
served consecutively so that the punishment reflects the gravity
of the offence.
At the present time there is the ability for these types of
sentences to be served concurrently. That is, if there is more
than one offence or the offence of a sexual assault occurs at the
same time as other offences such as break and enter, theft or
simple assault, the sentences are served at the same time. In
simple terms this would be similar to having loans from three
different institutions and only having to pay back one.
The principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code of
Canada. Section 718 of the code sets out what legislators in the
past have tried to do and tried to reflect in the sentencing
principles.
Section 718.1 states “A sentence must be proportionate to the
gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the
offender”. It goes further in setting out what these principles
are and it speaks of the need for reformation and rehabilitation
to be balanced against the more important principle, the
protection of society.
The Criminal Code further states “Where consecutive sentences
are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or
harsh”. Try explaining that to a victim of a violent crime. Try
explaining that to those who have lost their loved ones or had
their loved ones attacked, beaten or killed.
We must revisit the principles of sentencing. The suggestion by
the hon. member does just that in a positive way.
Bill C-251 would expand the ability of judges to impose a fair
sentence. No one should be getting a free ride in our justice
system. Sadly this is precisely what happens far too often. We
permit sexual offenders and other offenders who commit two, three
or more crimes to serve one sentence at one time. It is
absolutely absurd.
[Translation]
The name Clifford Olson is heard much too often in this House
and the mere mention of this name makes me shiver. This
individual killed 11 children and received only one life
sentence. He should be serving 11 life sentences.
The manipulative and self-serving testimony he gave at his
section 745 hearing was simply outrageous and an embarrassment
to all of Canada, and particularly to our justice system.
No sentence could be harsh enough considering the horrible
crimes committed by that scum.
The details of some of them would be enough to turn anybody into
an alarmist and a reactionary. However, we must look at
sentencing carefully. Common sense must always prevail.
In the case of individuals like Olson and Bernardo, it is
absolutely ridiculous to pretend that a sentence ranging from 15
years to life is an acceptable punishment.
[English]
That is why my colleague the justice critic for the PC party
continues to fight for the repeal of section 745, the faint hope
clause. That is why we support the efforts of other members of
this House, such as the member from British Columbia yesterday,
to repeal the faint hope clause.
1835
I call on all members from the member for Mississauga East to
the members from the Bloc and the NDP to join with us in our
fight to get rid of this ill-advised section of the Criminal
Code.
The principles that underscore this bill are completely useless
as long as we continue to have section 745 in the Criminal Code.
It is my belief that each of the innocent lives that were taken
at least deserve the validation of having a consecutive sentence
to represent their lives. A person who commits multiple crimes
should be given an appropriate sentence to reflect each and every
one of those offences, if committed at a different time with
different circumstances. This principle reflects the views of
most of my constituents and most Canadians.
Bill C-251 addresses this principle in a common sense manner.
Therefore I support the member for Mississauga East and I support
her bill.
[Translation]
I am extremely proud to support it. I recognize the importance
of consistent sentencing. I personally think that the justice
system should not weaken the ability of our society to protect
itself and to show its abhorrence of violent crime.
[English]
The second clause of Bill C-251 amends section 120 of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It requires offenders
sentenced for first and second degree murder to serve their full
parole ineligibility period on the sentence plus one-third of a
maximum of seven years, whichever is less.
As with the first clause of Bill C-251, it is an innovative way
to ensure that there is some truth in sentencing. There are
times and factual circumstances when the judge should impose a
sentence that would really reflect what the crime represents. If
a judge says 25 years, it should be 25 years. That should be the
end of it. That would give the offender and society faith in
their justice system. Cumulative sentences play a very important
role when it comes to parole eligibility.
Bill C-251 would be the best way to address cases of double
murders. The victim's family of the second murder are forced to
face the fact that their victim is not being addressed by the
justice system when the sentence has to be served concurrently.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I support this
bill and hope that all members support the efforts of the member
for Mississauga East.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, given what little time is left,
it will be extremely hard for me to get into the details of the
presentation I have prepared. However, I still want to speak
briefly of Bill C-251.
Before addressing the issue, I want to mention all the respect I
have for the work my hon. colleague has done on this bill. She
gave a lot of thought to this issue and the results of her work
deserve a lot of respect.
Obviously, for both my colleague and I, the safety of the people
is always foremost in our minds. Canadians feel safe at home and
that is the most important factor to take into consideration.
I would like to briefly point out some statistics the
International Centre for the Prevention of Crime included in its
latest report. It said that, asked to choose among several
factors those that best described what it is to be Canadian, 88%
of respondents ranked the feeling of belonging to a safe society
among the nine most significant factors.
I cannot support this bill for reasons I had hoped to have more
time to explain in detail, but which I will get into briefly.
First of all, I think there is in Canada a myth about what is
called a life sentence.
1840
[English]
What does it mean? In the case of first degree murder or repeat
second degree murder, the mandatory sentence is life without
parole eligibility for 25 years. What does it mean? It means
that the offender will be subject to the control and supervision
of correctional authorities for the rest of his life. It means
that a multiple murderer is ineligible for judicial review for
the reduction of parole ineligibility. It means that that
eligibility for parole after 25 years does not mean automatic
release from a penitentiary.
[Translation]
I understand time has run out. I hope I have an opportunity to
elaborate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): To reassure the
parliamentary secretary right off, the next time this bill is
considered in the House, he will have seven minutes to start the
debate, if he so wishes.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am on my feet to go back after the health minister in
regard to a question I put to him in June prior to the House
recessing for the summer regarding the hepatitis C victims.
A majority of Canadians are very upset by the government's
determination that it would only compensate those victims from
1986 to 1990. We feel that is fundamentally wrong. We feel that
it is wrong for a number of reasons but primarily the victims we
are talking about prior to 1986 and certainly some even after
1990 are all innocent victims of a tainted blood scandal.
I go back to Justice Krever's recommendation that all victims
should be compensated because there was wrongdoing on many
levels. I just want to give a couple of examples of that.
One is that we actually brought blood into this country that
came out of the U.S. prison system. Think about it. Sick
Canadians were given blood given by U.S. prisoners. I think we
know what goes on in prisons. We will not go into detail. Some
Canadians contracted hepatitis C because of that very error and
all the other difficulties surrounding this issue.
The government holds fast on its position that we will not
compensate those innocent victims outside of the convenient
timeframe of 1986 to 1990. The only reason the minister can give
is because those years 1986 to 1990 are the years that we most
likely could not defend ourselves if it did go to the courts. In
other words it would be very difficult for the government to
defend its position in those years.
A victim who contracted hepatitis C on December 31, 1985 would
not be compensated but a victim who contracted hepatitis C a day
later on January 1, 1986 would be compensated. This is absolutely
bizarre and it is absolutely wrong. We are going to continue to
fight on this side of the House along with a lot of other
Canadians to make sure there is fairness in this compensation
package. All victims should be compensated.
We often blame the health minister. I am going to be fairly
generous to him and say he has most likely tried as hard as he
could in cabinet to get compensation for those victims. At the
end of the day it falls at the doorstep of the government, the
leader of the government, the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister conveniently falls into the role of the
little humble man from Shawinigan.
Water just runs off his back. Talk about being coated in Teflon.
This Prime Minister is absolutely and totally coated with Teflon
from top to bottom.
1845
Can the Prime Minister not step back a little from this issue
and look at it for its seriousness? Actually the human
compassion and the need to compensate all victims—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the hon.
member's time has expired.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I reply to the member I
would point out that his question on June 10 related to the
testing of plasma donors.
I would also point out to him that I think everyone in the House
and across the country feels very badly when anyone who they know
gets an illness through no fault of their own, whether that
illness is cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis or diabetes.
It is important we all understand that when people across the
country get sick, the values embodied in the Canada Health Act
are that we offer those people care and access to treatment,
which hopefully will give them a good health outcome. That is
what the Canada Health Act is about.
I wanted to address the member's question on June 10 with regard
to the hepatitis C testing of plasma donors between the period of
1990 to 1993. I wanted to point out to him that a critical
distinction needs to be made at the outset of this issue and
discussion. That is the distinction between the testing of blood
donors who are donating blood which will be transferred directly
into persons needing a blood transfusion as contrasted with the
testing of donors of plasma which is then sent to a manufacturing
operation to be fractionated into plasma derivatives such as
coagulation factors, immune globulins and albumin.
In 1990 there was clear scientific evidence that testing of
donors of fresh blood for transfusion—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I apologize to the
parliamentary secretary but the time has expired.
[Translation]
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.)
APPENDIX
Address
of
Mr. Nelson Mandela,
President of the Republic of South Africa
to
both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa
on
Thursday, September 24, 1998
1040
ADDRESS
of
Mr. Nelson Mandela,
President of the Republic of South Africa
to
both Houses of Parliament
in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa
on
Thursday, September 24, 1998
Mr. Nelson Mandela and Madame Graca Machel were welcomed by the
Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, by the
Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker of the Senate and by the
Honourable Gilbert Parent, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons):
Colleagues from the House, colleagues from the Senate,
distinguished visitors, the Right Honourable Prime Minister of
Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker of
the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, colleagues,
ladies and gentlemen, mesdames et messieurs.
[English]
It is an honour to welcome the President of the Republic of
South Africa, Mr. Nelson Mandela, and Madame Graca Machel to
Canada and to this Parliament.
Mr. President, eight years ago when you first addressed this
Parliament you had only recently been released from 27 years in
prison. Apartheid was still the law of South Africa and your
country was an outcast from the community of nations. Fresh from
prison, you were in the midst of a heroic and still uncertain
struggle to dismantle the apartheid state and end a shameful
legacy of racial exclusion, minority domination and
institutionalized injustice.
Today all that is changed. A new non-racial constitution with
an entrenched bill of rights is in place. Public policy is
vigorously debated in 11 official languages, not only in the
national parliament in Cape Town, but in the nine provincial
capitals as well. A united and democratic South Africa has
rejoined the family of nations and under your leadership is
playing a respected and vital role on the international stage.
We in Canada are proud to have been associated with the
anti-apartheid struggle and to have assisted in your democratic
transition. The fight against apartheid was a cause which
crossed political lines and moved all my predecessors, from the
stand of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker at the Commonwealth
Conference in 1961, which resulted in South Africa's withdrawal
from that body, through the governments of Prime Ministers
Pearson, Trudeau and my predecessor Brian Mulroney.
In this our governments were reflecting the views of the people
of Canada. Canadians of all walks supported the anti-apartheid
movement individually and through their churches, their trades
unions, professional associations and non-governmental
organizations.
[Translation]
Your return to Canada after eight eventful years gives the
people of Canada, who shared your vision of a free, non-racial
and democratic society, the opportunity to celebrate the
profound and irreversible changes that have taken place in your
country. And, just as important, it is an opportunity to pay
tribute to your own decisive role in engineering a remarkable,
peaceful and harmonious transformation.
On behalf of all Canadians, I want to express our admiration for
the profound and peaceful reshaping of your country, and for the
spirit of tolerance and reconciliation which has guided that
transformation.
[English]
In setting South Africa free you have also unleashed your
country's immense potential to be a force for peace and stability
on the world stage. In the few short years since you have become
President, South Africa has resumed its rightful place at the UN,
the OAU and the World Trade Organization.
1045
It has become a vital partner in fashioning a safer and more
secure world. And it is fitting, very fitting, that the
Commonwealth, which closed its doors to the old South Africa,
will hold its next leaders' meeting in the new South Africa under
your chairmanship.
In the same spirit in which we supported your historic struggle,
today our two countries are working together to bring greater
peace and justice to the world on establishing an international
criminal court, on eliminating child labour, on extending the
non-proliferation treaty and of course as partners from the very
beginning in the Ottawa process and the international ban on land
mines.
Just as Canadians worked to help end the apartheid system, we
are also working to help build the new South Africa. We are
providing assistance in areas such as improving the accessibility
and quality of education, in helping to rebuild the justice
system, in linking our SchoolNet with young South Africans using
information technology to its fullest potential and in increasing
the trade and commercial links between our countries which are so
important to South Africa's economic development. The fact that
you are accompanied by an impressive commercial delegation and
the key business meetings you are holding here in Canada are
proof of the importance of that area.
[Translation]
Mr. President, the fact is that we in Canada care about South
Africa. Not just because of our attachment to the struggles of
the past, but because of our hopes for the future—the future of
humanity.
We believe that, at the end of a century of conflict and
genocide, the only hope for the world is to learn to live
together in understanding and tolerance. In South Africa, you
are working to build such a society. You are rejecting
separation based on race or language or religion. You are
tearing down old walls of hate. And building new bridges of
understanding. A new society for a new millennium.
A multilingual society. A multi-ethnic society. A society that
finds its strength in its diversity. And its soul and
inspiration in a common sense of humanity.
In Canada, in our own modest way, we have tried to do the same.
But we have not had the burden of history that has weighed so
heavily on your country for so much of this century. While our
goals and values are the same, our experiences have not been.
If, after decades of hate and oppression, you can succeed in
building a new society, our hopes for this battered world as it
enters a new millennium can be just a little bit brighter.
[English]
Certainly, Mr. President, this is the inspiration of South
Africa to the world today. Just as important, it is the
inspiration that you provided to the world.
It is often said that there are too few heroes in the world
today. That may be. But today we are in the presence of a real
hero. Few people in our time, or from any century, have so
symbolized the spirit of freedom that lives within every human
being as you have.
1050
Your struggle was an inspiration to freedom-loving men and women
everywhere. But, in a sense, the courage, optimism and
generosity of spirit you have shown since your struggle have been
even more of an inspiration. Suffering does not only lead to
bitterness and disillusion, it can lead to wisdom and compassion,
and to a better world.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to present to
you the leader of his nation, the statesman of his continent and
a hero for the world, President Nelson Mandela.
Mr. Nelson Mandela (President of the Republic of South Africa):
Mr. Speaker, honourable Prime Minister, Your
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday I had the honour to
address the Congress of the United States of America. Because of
the warmth of the reception I received, I felt I should share a
secret with members of the Congress.
I said that one of my fondest dreams was to become the
heavyweight boxing champion of the world. As a result of the
warm reception I received, I said that I was in a position to
challenge the reigning world champion, Evander Holyfield. I am
compelled today to repeat that statement because the warmth I
have received here is no less than that I received yesterday.
I know that it is a rare privilege for anyone from another
country to be invited to address this hallowed institution of
Canadian democracy which includes in its roll of honour leaders
of world renown.
That I should be granted that distinction twice in eight years
is something that can only be understood as a tribute to the
people of South Africa by the Canadian people, to whom we owe so
much, and an expression of the partnership between us.
When I stood before you in 1990, it was as a freedom fighter
still denied citizenship in my own country, seeking your support
to ensure an irreversible transition to democracy.
1055
Today I stand before you as the elected representative of the
South African people to thank you once again for helping us end
our oppression, for assisting us through our transition and now
for your partnership in the building of a better life for all
South Africans. We will forever be indebted to you.
Although we still have a long way to go before we realize our
vision of a better life for all, there has been a great
transformation in South Africa since 1990 and solid foundations
have been laid.
The experience of all peoples has taught that our democracy
would remain secure and stable only if we could unite those who
were once locked in conflict and if our new freedoms brought
material improvement in the lives of our people.
On this day, 24 September, South Africa marks one of our most
important national days. Heritage Day is dedicated to the
celebration of the rich diversity of our people. As I speak,
representatives of all the language, cultural and linguistic
communities are gathered at a conference discussing how to give
institutional form to the commitment in our constitution to the
promotion and respect of the rights of communities.
In order that the memory of historical injustice and violations
of human rights should not remain as a continuing obstacle to
national unity, our Truth and Reconciliation Commission has
helped us confront our terrible past. Painful and imperfect as
the process has been, it has taken us further than anyone
expected toward a common understanding of our history.
If we lay stress on uniting the different sections of our
society, it is because unity and the partnership of all the
structures of our society are critical to the reconstruction and
development of our society in order to eradicate apartheid's
legacy of poverty and inequality.
Though there are differences among us, as is natural in any
democratic society, in particular one in transition from a past
such as ours, they play themselves out within an allegiance to
our new democracy and within a broad support for the government's
policies.
We have therefore been able to make a good start in bringing
basic amenities to millions of people for the first time in their
lives: electricity, clean water, health care facilities, housing
and schooling.
Our economic policies have turned years of stagnation into
sustained growth since 1994, along with improved productivity and
exports as we gear our economy for success in a competitive
global environment.
We do face major challenges and problems. What is important is
that we are confronting them and we are confident that we will
overcome them.
For example, though our policies are creating new jobs, the
number falls short of what we need. In response government,
labour and business are therefore joining forces in preparation
for a presidential jobs summit next month in order to work out
together a strategy for sustained job creation.
1100
As we democratize our society, setting up new institutions or
transforming old ones, we are also dealing with corruption. The
institutions of the new democratic order are dealing with the
corruption in our society. Among other things, we have appointed
a powerful commission headed by a judge to expose and root out
corruption in the public service and recover the proceeds.
Crime is still at an unacceptably high level but we have turned
the tide through the adoption of a comprehensive national
strategy that includes the reshaping of a police force whose
former function was merely the protection of minority interests
and the suppression of resistance.
And though we have made mistakes in government due to lack of
experience, it is also true that we have achieved much more for
our people than was ever done under the previous government.
We are all too aware of the great deal that remains to be done.
What is important is that we are united as a nation as never
before and determined to succeed, and that we have friends like
Canada who are working with us as partners.
Canada is an important presence in much of what we have achieved
and in what we are building.
Since our democratic elections, our relationship with Canada has
entered a new and vibrant phase, one that is growing from
strength to strength. In drawing up our new democratic
constitution we drew deeply on Canadian experience.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government of
Canada for the technical assistance provided through the Canadian
International Development Agency and the International
Development Research Centre. Critical areas affecting
transformation have benefited, including science and technology,
places of learning, our labour laws and our courts. We look
forward to the continuation of this assistance.
One of the critical measures of the growing relationship between
our countries is the threefold increase since 1994 in trade to a
level close to 1 billion Canadian dollars per year. We expect
this expansion to continue. We have brought on this trip people
from the private sector and government concerned with the
economy. We look forward to a reciprocal Canadian team in South
Africa soon.
Also with me are government representatives and officials
concerned with safety and security who have come to seek support
for the implementation of our crime prevention strategy, as well
as others concerned with health care.
In all these ways we are benefiting from not only financial
assistance and from your expertise and experience, but as well as
the affinities and shared aspirations which join us.
1105
Mr. Speaker, on my way here today I had the honour of unveiling,
at your human rights monument, a plaque dedicated to John
Humphrey, author of the first draft of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. I would like, if I may, to pay tribute to his
contribution to the central philosophy of your country and his
dedication to the cause of human rights worldwide.
This is an area in which your country and mine march hand in
hand in practical action to make a living reality of the rights
to which we subscribe.
In this regard we think of Canada's hard work together with
other countries to bring to fruition the anti-land mine
convention. We were very proud in December last year to be the
third country, after Canada and Norway, to sign that convention
here in Ottawa.
Canada and South Africa also together played a part in the
recent establishment of the International Criminal Court.
South Africa is increasingly being called upon to play a role in
peacekeeping, in southern Africa and in Africa as a whole. Our
approach is that we will play whatever part we can within our
limited means and within a multilateral framework, whether it be
the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Non-Aligned Movement,
the Organization of African Unity, and the Southern African
Development Community.
Essential to our vision of a new and more humane international
order is the belief that inevitable as differences may be, they
need not and should not be resolved by the force of arms. We
look to peaceful resolution of differences because this is the
only way in which humanity can prosper.
It is in this context that South Africa has in recent days found
itself called upon to contribute its forces to a joint regional
security initiative aimed at assisting, at its own request, the
democratically elected government of a neighbour by securing a
measure of peace and stability.
Here too we look to Canada as a partner. We recognize Lester
Pearson as the founder of modern peacekeeping because of his
innovative intervention in the Suez crisis.
By the same token, we salute Canada's distinguished service over
many years in Cyprus, Bosnia, Somalia and more recently in the
disarmament process in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's internationalist record gives us
confidence to know that you understand and share our vision of an
African Renaissance. If history has decreed that our continent
at the end of the 20th century should be marginalized in world
affairs, we know that our destiny lies in our own hands.
Yet we also know that we cannot bring about our Renaissance
solely by our own efforts, since the problems we face are rooted
in conditions beyond the power of any one nation to determine.
1110
Indeed, the turmoil in far off economies that we have had to
weather has, we know, affected Canada too. In the interdependent
world in which we now live, rich and poor, strong and weak are
bound in a common destiny that decrees that none shall enjoy
lasting prosperity and stability unless others do too.
These harsh lessons of our global economy were the focus of
attention at the summit at the Non-Aligned Movement held in
Durban in our country earlier this month. They have forced
themselves upon the attention of the world international
community. A debate about the global trade and financial system
that has been too long in the making has now been joined.
We urge you to join with us in seeking to redirect the system
and its institutions so as to cater for the needs of development
and the interests of the poor.
In so doing we would be affirming a fundamental principle of all
human society, namely that the existence and the well-being of
each of us is dependent on that of our fellows. In a globalized
world, that is as true of nations as it is of individual men and
women.
Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, this occasion marks something
of a farewell. I am deeply grateful that it has been possible,
before my retirement from public life, to make this second visit
to a people that has made our aspirations their own. You
insisted that the rights which the world declares to be universal
should also be the rights of all South Africans.
But though it is a personal farewell and in some sense an
ending, I do know that it is also a beginning, marking the start
of a new and more profound relationship between our peoples.
Mr. Speaker, hon. Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I thank
you from the bottom of my heart.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1115
Hon. Gildas Molgat (Speaker of the Senate): Mr. President
and Mrs. Machel, Mr. Prime Minister and Madam Chrétien, Mr. Chief
Justice and Madam, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in parliament, and
ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. President, no words of mine can ever convey the depth of
feeling of Canadians toward you better than the applause that you
heard here this morning.
On behalf of the members of the Senate of Canada I want to thank
you, Your Excellency, for returning to Canada once again and
addressing a joint assembly of our parliament.
Just over eight years ago, on June 18, 1990, you spoke to us as
the Deputy President of the African National Congress. Just
newly liberated from a South African jail, you came to seek our
continued support in the final stages of that great struggle of
your people and yourself against apartheid and all other forms of
racism and discrimination. As you said at the time, the message
you brought was indeed simple: South Africa should be
transformed into a united, democratic and non-racial country.
[Translation]
Canada has some knowledge of how difficult it is to remain “a
united, democratic and non-racial country”. It is because of
your skilful statesmanship and the wisdom and moderation of the
inhabitants and chiefs of South Africa whom you represent that
you have made such tremendous progress towards the goal you and
your compatriots have set yourselves. Perhaps you would favour
us with some advice?
[English]
A decade ago it seemed inevitable that the struggle against
institutionalized racism would lead to a violent and bitter civil
upheaval that would tear South Africa apart and leave the country
bitterly divided, prostrate, and in the hands of anti-democratic
regimes. This unfortunately has proven to be the fate of too
many countries, and at a terrible cost they have freed themselves
from the rule of one oppressive regime, only to fall victim of
another often more radical tyranny.
Eight years ago your address to our parliament gave us hope that
South Africa might avoid that fate. It indicated that your long
27 years in prison had not led to bitterness. Rather, it had led
to wisdom and the determination to use your immense personal
prestige in South Africa, in the African National Congress and
throughout the world to bring about a united, democratic and
non-racial South Africa through mediation and negotiation.
The theme of healing, of reconciliation and of building featured
largely at your inauguration as President of South Africa.
At that time you entered into a covenant to build, and, Mr.
President, I quote your very words:
—a society in which all South Africans, both black and white,
will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts,
assured of their inalienable right to human dignity—a rainbow
nation at peace with itself and the world.
1120
Those were stirring words, Mr. President.
[Translation]
In the years that followed your election to office, the
government you lead held fast to this noble ideal, although it
was not always easy. The challenge was a formidable one.
[English]
It has not been easy; changing a racially based, repressive,
democratically limited political structure in which the internal
power is in the hands of a privileged few has been a major, major
challenge.
Furthermore, revolutionary political change gives rise to
exaggerated hopes of immediate, wide-ranging social and economic
improvement. Such expectations are difficult to meet. Yet, with
time, with deep personal commitment by yourself and like-minded
colleagues, and with broad support from your people, you are
bringing about long-lasting and deep-seated changes in living
conditions and social structure.
You are doing more than making dramatic progress in domestic
affairs. You are showing the world what can be done. You are
exercising a moderating influence on the world stage.
Under your leadership South Africa has become a continental
force of stability and peace. On behalf of the Senate of Canada
I thank you for sharing with us your knowledge about the progress
South Africa is making and your views of the world situation.
Canadians welcome the return of South Africa to active
participation in the work of the Commonwealth, the United Nations
and other international organizations, and we value very highly
the increasingly close relations between our two countries
symbolized this morning by your wonderful address.
[Translation]
Thank you for coming to Canada.
[English]
Mr. President, be assured that here you are among friends.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Mr. President, Madam Machel, Madam
Chrétien, my colleagues of the House of Commons and our brothers
and sisters of the Senate, distinguished guests.
[Translation]
Whatever their age and occupation, Canadians have always had a
great affinity with South Africa and its inhabitants.
[English]
Mr. President, you have said:
I cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which
all persons live together in harmony and with equal
opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to
achieve. But if need be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared
to die.
Neither the hardships of decades of imprisonment nor the
trappings of more recent power have caused you to lose sight of
this ideal.
1125
Young South Africans were the first to honour you with their
idealism, their support and their willingness to sacrifice
themselves in the cause. Soon however your reputation spread
abroad and young people all over the world honoured you by
electing you honorary president of their university and college
students unions.
[Translation]
Many other honours were to follow, not the least of them the
Nobel Peace Prize.
But what has earned our greatest admiration,
Your Excellency, is that you have never turned away from the
ideal you espoused.
[English]
Mr. President, you could have preached and practised the
politics of vengeance and retribution, but instead you, sir, have
devoted your energies and influence to the process of healing and
reconciliation.
You, sir, have chosen the path that uses political change as a
means of bringing about peaceful change in the hearts and minds
of individuals, as well as in society. That was the message that
you brought to the Canadian Parliament eight years ago, and that
was the commitment you made when you became the President of
South Africa. Sir, you have kept your word.
I choose my words carefully. You honour us who are here today.
You honour the Canadian people. You honour this place, this
House of Commons.
When historians write of the 20th century, beside the names of
giants who have advanced the causes of peace and democracy,
giants such as Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., the
name of Nelson Mandela will be inscribed.
All of us thank God for you having been with us in this world.
You have made it, sir, a better place and we thank you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.