36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 80
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 6, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
|
| Bill C-31. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-471. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-472. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
1010
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Poverty
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Pedophiles
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1015
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1100
(Division 1264)
| Motion agreed to
|
1105
| PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1125
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1130
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1135
1140
1145
1150
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1155
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1200
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1205
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. John Williams |
1240
1245
1250
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1355
| FRENCH-SPEAKING MINORITY COMMUNITIES
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER BREAKFAST
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING CANADA INC.
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| TRIPLE “A” BASKETBALL
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1400
| YOUTH MANIFESTO
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| STEPHEN LEACOCK
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1405
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| AIR CANADA
|
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
| MUHARAN
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| TARTAN DAY
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| EDITORIAL CARTOONISTS
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1410
| BILL C-20
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER BREAKFAST
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1420
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1425
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1430
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1435
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CFB PETAWAWA
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1445
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1450
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1455
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| FRENCH LANGUAGE BROADCASTING
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1500
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-25. Second reading
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1555
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1615
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1655
1700
1705
1710
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1715
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1720
1725
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Amendment
|
1730
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1735
1740
| Mr. André Harvey |
1745
1750
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1755
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1815
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 80
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 6, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (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 10 petitions.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, an act
respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee
protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-471, an act to amend the
Competition Act (international mutual assistance and references)
and the Competition Tribunal Act (references).
She said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill amends the
Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to promote
international mutual co-operation in civil, reviewable matters to
ensure effective enforcement of the law.
As we know, with globalization there are already treaties which
allow for this kind of co-operation in criminal matters, but the
mechanisms that exist internationally do not apply in matters
that are civilly reviewable.
This legislation will provide a framework for exchanging
information, especially with the anti-trust agencies in the
United States and the European Union, and will allow the
Competition Bureau to be in a better position to deal with
businesses whose operations span borders.
I hope to get the support of the House for this private member's
bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-472, an act to amend the
Competition Act (conspiracy agreements and the right to make
private applications), the Competition Tribunal Act (costs and
summary dispositions) and the Criminal Code as a consequence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a bill to
amend the Competition Act, the Competition Tribunal Act and the
Criminal Code as a consequence thereof.
This enactment strengthens the Competition Act and the
Competition Tribunal Act to respond to a changing business and
enforcement environment in Canada's marketplace and to enhance
protection for business and consumers from anti-competitive
activities.
1010
The bill adopts a new approach to agreements between
competitors. It broadens access to the Competition Tribunal and
provides it, fortunately, with new powers.
Specifically, the bill will modernize current provisions on
conspiracy to avoid discouraging strategic alliances, enable
individuals to apply to the Competition Tribunal in cases of
refusal to deal, exclusive dealing, tied selling and market
restrictions, provide a new power to make temporary orders
halting anti-competitive acts and broaden the powers to the
tribunal to include cost awards and summary dispositions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD POVERTY
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table a number of petitions from constituents and
citizens at large, residents of Canada, who are asking parliament
and the House in particular to pay attention to the fact that
there is child poverty in this country. They remind us of the
unanimous resolution of November 24, 1989 to end child poverty
and are asking parliament to fulfil this promise to end child
poverty by the year 2000.
PEDOPHILES
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.
The first set of petitions, which contains 786 signatures, calls
upon parliament to enact legislation to establish a pedophile
registry.
The second group of petitions contains 249 signatures. The
petitioners seek the protection of the communities and children
in our country and ask parliament to pass legislation to prevent
the release from lawful custody of anyone convicted for a second
time of a sexual offence against a minor person.
The third set of petitions contains 75 signatures. The petitioners
call upon parliament to eliminate the right of a convicted
pedophile to be let out of jail on bail pending an appeal. This
would thereby ensure the protection and safety of the victims and
the community from a convicted sexual offender.
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of
a number of people from British Columbia who are concerned about
the undemocratic nature of the Senate and the fact that it is the
only unelected Senate in the world today. They are calling upon
parliament to take the appropriate measures to abolish the
Senate.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is
quite long so I will summarize it.
The petitioners from British Columbia are calling upon the
Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to prevent
persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from
custody pending the hearing of their appeal, except in
exceptional circumstances.
BILL C-23
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have presented petitions on Bill C-23 before and I
have another roughly 350 here, bringing the total to 1,400 people
who are calling on the Government of Canada to take all necessary
steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to
preserve the definition of marriage in Canada. I am pleased to
present these petitions on their behalf.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1015
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
to seek unanimous consent of the House for an emergency debate on
the protection of regional programming for the CBC.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent of the House to have an emergency debate concerning the
CBC?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions) moved that a ways and means motion to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament
on February 28, 2000, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
Some hon. members: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
Some hon. members: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1100
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Mark
| McNally
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Pankiw
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Vellacott
|
Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 87
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
1105
[English]
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) ACT
The House resumed from April 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-22, an act to facilitate combatting the laundering of
proceeds of crime, to establish the financial transactions and
reports analysis centre of Canada and to amend and repeal certain
acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to continue debate with respect to
this very important piece of legislation, Bill C-22, which deals
with money laundering.
Money laundering poses a great challenge these days to law
enforcement agents in their battle against organized crime. For
example, a few months ago in the United States, American
officials discovered the biggest money laundering operation ever
in the history of the United States. Federal investigators
believe that Russian gangsters had channelled up to $10 billion
through the Bank of New York, the 15th largest bank in the United
States. This news sent extreme shock waves throughout the entire
financial services sector and proved that money laundering can
certainly affect even the big banks.
It is vital that we get more aggressive in the fight against
money laundering and give law enforcement agencies better tools
to do their job. For Canadians to feel a sense of security and
faith, we must arm our police agencies with all the necessary
resources to make sure they can take up their fight against
organized crime.
Canada has continued to come under heavy criticism in recent
years as a result of being identified as an easy place for
criminal organizations to launder money. Criminals have found
Canada as an attractive place to hide large financial
transactions because of our proximity to the United States, our
stable political system, the high volume of cross-border
transactions and because the odds of being caught in this country
are lower than in other jurisdictions.
The Liberal government has been talking about tougher reporting
rules for at least three years. As far back as May 1996 federal
officials said that they were considering a mandatory reporting
system. This was reported in the Financial Post on May 3,
1996.
Globally, approximately $3 billion to $5 billion American in
criminally diverted funds enter the international capital markets
annually. The federal government estimates between $5 billion
and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are laundered in Canada each
year.
Bill C-22 was first introduced in May 1999 as Bill C-81 which
died on the order paper when parliament prorogued. It was one of
the many pieces of legislation that were victims of partisan
proceedings and manoeuvres by the government. Currently Canada
has money laundering legislation, the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) Act which was passed in 1991 as a Progressive
Conservative initiative.
As a backward glance, the G-7 Financial Action Task Force
established in 1989 drafted 40 recommendations aimed at enhancing
and co-ordinating the international effort against money
laundering.
According to that task force, the major weakness of Canada's
current legislation which was passed in 1991 is the inability to
effectively and efficiently respond to requests for assistance in
relation to restraint and forfeiture. The use of domestic money
laundering proceedings to seize, restrain and forfeit the
proceeds of offences committed in other countries is recognized
as sometimes ineffective. Legislation to allow Canada to enforce
its responsibilities in foreign forfeiture requests is needed.
The task force also recommended that mandatory reporting
requirements be legislated. Currently the reporting transactions
in Canada are voluntary. A financial intelligence unit should be
established to deal with the collection, management, analysis and
dissemination of suspicious reports and other relevant
intelligence data.
Many of these recommendations are embodied in Bill C-22 which
proposes to bolster Canada's anti-money laundering efforts by
requiring mandatory reporting by financial agencies of
information relating to certain types of transactions. This
information would then be sent to a central data gathering and
analysis body, the financial transactions reporting and analysis
centre of Canada. This would be an independent government body
which would be separate from the RCMP but presumably would work
closely with all law enforcement agencies.
1110
The disclosure of information by the centre would then be
strictly controlled. The centre would be authorized to provide
key identifying information of suspicious transactions, for
example, the name, date, account number and value of transaction,
to the appropriate police force as it has the reasonable grounds
to suspect that the information would be relevant to investigate
and prosecute if money laundering offences have occurred.
This is also subject to restrictions set out in other
legislation, for example the Privacy Act and the Access to
Information Act. This same information may be provided to
Revenue Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,
Citizenship and Immigration Canada or other relevant agencies.
It would also be relevant, for example, to tax evasion offences
or threats to national security. For the police to have access to
additional information from the centre, they would first have to
obtain a court order for disclosure and meet with the standard of
reasonable and probable grounds that applies to all offences.
This mandatory reporting is a step certainly in the right
direction. The new law would require individuals or entities
importing, exporting or transporting currency or monetary
instruments in excess of $10,000 across the border to report all
activities to Canada Customs. Failure to do so would result in
the seizure of the cash or monetary instruments being
transported.
The bill does not however define what is and what is not a
suspicious transaction, nor has the government yet published its
draft regulations. These will certainly flesh out the substance
of the bill.
The current system of voluntary reporting of suspicious
transactions would be replaced with mandatory procedures.
Reporting requirements would apply to regulated financial
institutions, casinos, currency exchange businesses, as well as
any individuals acting as financial intermediaries, such as
lawyers or accountants. These individuals would therefore be
required to file reports for certain categories of financial
transactions, as well as any transaction where there is
reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction is related to
the commission of a money laundering offence. Making ill-gotten
gains essentially appear legitimate is what is at the root cause
of money laundering and it is an attempt to wash or cleanse this
dirty money.
There has been great concern in legal circles over the issue of
solicitor-client privilege and confidentiality. Lawyers and
accountants acting as intermediaries would have to report
suspicious financial transactions carried out by their clients or
face stiff fines and possible prison sentences. The Criminal
Lawyers' Association in particular said that this kind of
reporting violates guarantees of reasonable search and seizure
under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Alan Gold of
that association states that the bill ignores these concerns.
Certainly ethical considerations already apply for all lawyers
and accountants. I would suggest that the reasonable person test
would be applied and that there is a greater good at issue here.
That greater good is to ensure that we do everything we can to
dissuade individuals who would be trying to embark on this type
of criminal activity so that we can eradicate it. Certainly
there can be a common ground and a middle ground that would
satisfy the constitutional requirements of freedom of expression
and freedom from unreasonable search.
Penalties for failing to report suspicious transactions are
quite heavy. They can be up to $2 million and imprisonment for
five years. This certainly expresses the seriousness and the
punitive sanctions reflect this.
The Americans have already moved in this direction with their
own tough new law on money laundering. They are very concerned
about Canada's approach to crime prevention, particularly since
the government changed in 1993. There must be some attempt to at
least have a degree of co-operation and parity with the steps the
United States has taken.
The Liberal government has given the Americans much evidence to
validate their concerns. In December 1999 a U.S. customs officer
discovered an Algerian Canadian with Algerian terrorist
connections attempting to enter the United States through Seattle
with a carload of explosives. In February 2000 the American
government suspended firearms and ammunition sales to Canada,
which was done at the request of our government. Legal import
licences were being used to import large quantities of handguns,
rifles and ammunition. The firearms were then being smuggled
into other countries and often back into the United States.
It is an embarrassment for our country. We cannot have the
reputation of being soft on crime. It is another blow to the
relationship that we have, in particular with respect to the open
border relationship with the United States.
Since 1993 the Liberal government has talked about increasing
penalties for money laundering as a matter of increasing public
safety.
Yet the RCMP still very much lacks a proper budget to deal with
today's sophisticated criminal. For example, the budget this
year saw $810 million spread over three years, much of it being
earmarked to fight organized crime, including activities such as
money laundering.
1115
Let us put this into perspective. Some 62% of this new money
will not be available until 2001-02. This will be added to the
RCMP base budget of approximately $2.1 million. We suggest this
is still not enough.
Mounties already have to curtail their undercover operations
which target organized crime, along with a reduction in training.
The inability to conduct proper fraud investigations in British
Columbia has been highlighted, as has the important issue of
inadequate resources.
To correct these problems the Progressive Conservative Party is
proposing that over 5,000 RCMP officers are needed. As well,
there is a lack of staff at forensic laboratories needed to
analyze DNA data and other data that has to be placed on the CPIC
system. The police forces need to know that this quickly
advancing technology will be incorporated into their services,
yet the government will not commit enough money to even upgrade
the new CPIC system. It gave $115 million when it was clearly
indicated by the RCMP that $283 million was needed to bring it up
to snuff.
The British Columbia mounties may shift away from organized
crime to deal with more pressing needs such as filling police
vacancies and simply paying their officers to show up for work.
In rural areas this is of extreme concern. There is a problem
with RCMP detachments being closed, or losing municipal police
forces in small communities. Granby, in the riding of Shefford,
is facing this threat. At the same time, we know that biker
gangs are terrorizing farmers, forcing them to grow marijuana in
their fields, and even threatening members of the House of
Commons.
This is part of a larger problem. The financial transactions
and reports analysis centre is certainly a welcome relief to one
aspect of the ongoing struggle that the RCMP faces in trying to
protect Canadians, but the RCMP is being stretched to the limit.
We must guard against the beginning of a rivalry between
agencies, such as we have seen taking place between the RCMP and
CSIS. The breakdown in communications and not sharing
information is certainly counterproductive.
The Department of Finance has set an approximate cost for the
centre at $10 million per annum to staff and operate. I suggest
this is a small price to pay for public safety, especially when
compared with the over $300 million that the Liberal government
has already spent on a very inefficient, ineffective and
discriminatory gun regulation scheme, which is certainly not a
priority when faced with the ongoing problems of simply staffing
RCMP detachments.
In August 1999 the solicitor general told a meeting of police
chiefs that this bill was a top priority for the federal
government. However, we saw that this bill languished on the
order paper for some time and it has taken a full seven months
for it to be presented to the House for debate.
Reaction from various organizations concerned and affected by
the legislation has been positive thus far. The RCMP calls it
long overdue. Superintendent Ben Soave, head of the RCMP's
combined forces and special enforcement unit, said that this
legislation will make a significant difference.
Gene McLean, director of security for the Canadian Bankers
Association, has also referred to this legislation as having been
long awaited by the banking industry. Organized criminals will
be less likely to consider bringing their money to Canada as a
result.
Even as we debate this legislation today, criminals are finding
more and more sophisticated ways to launder money in this
country. There are many concerns that the Conservative Party of
Canada has. Although we support Bill C-22, there are examples by
which the legislation could be improved.
Smurfing, which is the practice of breaking down transactions
into smaller amounts so that they will not be reported, is still
a way that money launderers have to undermine and come in behind
this legislation.
There are all kinds of new tricks, including dummy corporations
or avoiding banks by using money transmitters such as Western
Union and storefront businesses that cash cheques, sell money
orders or travellers cheques and then exchange them for foreign
currency.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada believes very
strongly that it is time for the government to do more and to be
more proactive in fighting organized crime.
Instead of simply being reactive and following the lead of other
countries, it is time for Canada once again to be a pioneer, to
step forward and to set an example.
1120
Why is Canada the last G-7 country in the world to implement
money laundering legislation? Surely the Minister of Finance,
while attending meetings around the world, must have been
embarrassed that we are the last G-7 country to implement such
anti-money laundering legislation.
Enforcement issues and the burden of investigation continue to
be top priorities. Draft regulations are not set out in terms of
the precise information which will be required with respect to
disclosure.
There are all kinds of other ways to improve this legislation.
What about the exemption for retailers? The bill aims at
detecting large cash transactions as an indication of suspicious
activity. Why are retailers not required to report purchases
made with large amounts of cash?
Money laundering frequently takes place in the form of big
ticket purchases, for example, real estate, boats, cars,
jewellery, et cetera. Disclosure issues as well will have to be
addressed and the centre is only authorized to share information
with police forces, Canadian Customs, revenue agencies, CSIS and
Citizenship and Immigration. There may be others with whom this
information will need to be shared.
While we certainly acknowledge that this is a step in the right
direction, we are going to have to try to improve this
legislation at the committee, and we will endeavour to do so.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague for his worthwhile intervention this morning
on Bill C-22.
My question for him is, does the legislation and this new
agency, and in fact does the government have plans to investigate
some of the more advanced types of money laundering? I am
speaking specifically of e-laundering, the ability to transmit
large amounts of money via technology, the Internet in this case.
These transactions are almost impossible to track today, and with
sophisticated financial instruments such as derivatives it will
become increasingly difficult for governments or regulatory
agencies to oversee this type of thing.
I would be concerned if the government did not have a strategy
to address this in the future because, clearly, with the
increased sophistication of organized crime in this area, this
will be a problem; not just for tomorrow, it is probably already
a problem today.
I hope this legislation does not simply address yesterday's
problem because of the hesitancy of the government to address the
issue earlier. I hope that we are well on the way to addressing
today's and tomorrow's problem, that is, electronic commerce
being used as a vehicle to launder money.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my
colleague from Kings—Hants. I know he is greatly concerned with
this issue. Coming from Nova Scotia, which is bounded by a large
body of water, we often face a great deal of importation, not
only of money, obviously, but potentially drugs and other
contraband material.
The question was very probing. The legislation itself is not
crafted in such a way to address the specific question with
respect to e-commerce.
The hon. member quite rightly points out that this is very much
the wave of the future with respect to financial transactions and
potential criminal activity on the Internet.
The new centre which is being set up, because it will be in its
infancy, will be very early on faced with the task of trying to
craft a response, a way to police the Internet in an attempt to
prevent this.
I would suggest that establishing the centre is a step in the
right direction. Having personnel will be the crucial response
to the hon. member's question, ensuring that we have individuals
who are trained, intelligent and up to speed on the latest
technological advances. Hopefully the centre, with shared
resources and with the ability to hear from agencies such as
those in the United States, will be able to address this serious
problem in the future.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a long history in this kind of issue. I sat for
10 years on the Waterloo Regional Police Commission. As
chairman, I can tell members that this was an area of primary
concern.
We went across Canada and, in fact, went to international
conferences where we looked at these issues because they were
very, very important, not only to Canada, but to nations around
the world.
1125
I was quite heartened by the fact that the hon. member opposite
deemed it appropriate to make his comments. I know that he has a
very strong interest in this area. I congratulate him for some
of the recognition that he gave to the government with respect to
the kind of initiative we are taking.
This initiative will require not only physical resources but
human resources to accomplish the desired result. I applaud the
government and members on this side of the House for the kind of
measures we are taking. It is always a question of whether we
should go further or faster, more money, and those kinds of
issues. It is often a question of priorities. However, I think
at the end of the day Canadians will applaud what the government
is doing in this very important area.
In light of the globalization that is taking place and in light
of the interconnectedness of the world, does the hon. member see
that this is a problem which will escalate over time? I am sure
he will say yes. I would like to know his views with respect to
how best to try to curtail this very severe problem in a
globalized world. After all, it is a very severe problem.
People, no matter where they live in the world, find themselves
caught in the trap with these kinds of criminal activities.
When I was chairman of the Waterloo Region Police Commission,
with 700 police officers and civilians, we went to great lengths
to look at this issue. We had symposia and went to places across
Canada and internationally to see what could be done. I would be
very interested in his views because of his background and his
very strong interest in this area.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for his question and his intervention. I certainly
acknowledge his similar interest in matters of justice and
policing around the country. As a former police officer I am
sure he appreciates the incredible pressures that frontline
police officers and those who specialize in areas such as
organized crime are faced with on a daily basis.
I also want to acknowledge his commentary with respect to the
usefulness of the bill. We in the Progressive Conservative Party
applaud this government initiative. In fact, it is a
continuation of a bill that we put in place when we were in
government in 1991. I do not want to get into a partisan rant,
but we have seen similar instances where the current government
was not so complimentary of the Progressive Conservative
government of the day and absolutely castigated the government
for things such as free trade and the GST, but then, similarly,
when in office, enhanced, expanded, embraced and took credit for
bills and legislation put in place by the Progressive
Conservative government. We will not follow that path. We will
acknowledge that the Liberal government has done the right thing
by continuing to move in the right direction, which was started
by a Progressive Conservative government.
To address his specific question, this legislation and the
setting up of this centre will very much put in place a process
that will allow us to embark on the further information sharing
that the hon. member referred to, the ability to see what other
countries are doing, in particular the United States, and to draw
on the best minds, the best personnel and the best intelligence
that is available to see that we address this very serious global
problem to which he referred quite correctly.
That and recruiting individuals from the country, keeping our
very best and brightest here, and offering them opportunities in
this area is another suggestion that I have as to how we can
continue to fight this problem and enhance our ability to guard
against this type of criminal activity that is becoming very much
a global problem.
I would suggest, and he alluded to it in his question, that it
has a great deal to do with the personnel and the intellectual
property that we have to preserve and enhance in the country in
our attempt to address what is a wonderful opportunity when it
comes to technology and the Internet and the use of global
communication, but it is also something that can leave us very
vulnerable if we are not prepared to put in place the safeguards.
The centre can be a centre of excellence. It can be a great
opportunity for those trained in this capacity, and hopefully we
will, and I have every confidence that we will, continue to
produce very bright, intelligent people who will be able to help
us in this task.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon.
member for the message that he gave us this morning.
It is a given that in order to attack the problems in organized
crime or any crime we need the manpower.
1130
Speaking from a personal basis, in my constituency I believe I
have more ports of entry than any other constituency in Canada.
Every detachment along the border with Montana in the United
States has been cut in half. When I attended a banquet of a
rural municipality government, the sergeant in control of that
area reported that because of cutbacks they were not able to
investigate all reported crimes.
Knowing that the staff is not available, people are failing to
report crimes such as break and enter. The statistics show that
the crime rate is going down, simply because they are not being
reported. I would like the member to comment.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more
with the hon. member. He has made a very useful and very
straightforward commentary on the task before our law enforcement
agents, not only police and RCMP but very much with respect to
our ports and our border police.
This country, if I can make the analogy, is like a big,
beautiful racehorse and these criminals are like horseflies
buzzing around it. We are very much in danger of the parasites
taking over the host if we do not allow our police agents the
ability and give them the necessary resources to do something
about it.
We must be prepared to take the necessary steps, put the money
into resources, and when we are made aware of situations like the
Sidewinder file outside the country we better be ready to lay the
money down and give police the backup they need.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are debating today Bill C-22, an act to
facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of crime, to
establish the financial transactions and report analysis centre
of Canada and to amend and repeal certain acts in consequence.
On December 3, 1998, the solicitor general said that early in
the new year of 1999 the government would introduce legislation
to curb money laundering. It did not happen in early 1999. In
fact it happened in May 1999, but due to the agenda of the
government the legislation ended up dying on the order paper.
This vital legislation, which was supposed to have been
introduced according to the words of the solicitor general in
early 1999, was finally reintroduced for passage by the House on
December 15, 1999, not exactly early 1999.
Yesterday the solicitor general came to the standing committee
on justice and told us that when he had last appeared before the
committee he said they would do it and now they have done it.
Yesterday was the first day, one full year after he had been
there in the first place, that he could sit there and boast about
the fact that they had done it. What is involved? It strikes me
that if the Liberals were given a hamburger franchise they would
do away with the term fast food. I do not understand.
Let us take a look at an article from the Globe and Mail
of April 4. It is important that the government get on with it.
The article reads:
“The effect of organized crime can be traced in the smallest,
most remote communities and in areas as diverse as insurance
premiums and ice cream retailing”, law enforcement officers told
a conference that ended yesterday in Montreal. “For the first
time, organized crime, serious criminal organizations, are
actually threatening the democratic institutions of this country
and the values that we hold dear. It is a real threat to the way
of life we have in this country. It is that serious”.
That was a quote by an RCMP deputy commissioner. The article
continues:
—said former Crown prosecutor Louis Dionne, now head of the
organized crime directorate for the Surete du Quebec, “You can't
see it. You can't smell it. But if you have the misfortune of
putting your wet fingers in the socket, it'll hurt you”.
1135
That is where we are. I have actually been questioned by
reporters on its significance, on what money laundering is all
about. Although Canada is a member of the Paris based
international task force against money laundering, it does not
get good grades from world experts on this problem. They also
say that it would be a good idea, perhaps, to set up money
laundering in Canada because the charges are less and the risks
are lower.
Why has the government delayed and delayed the introduction of
the bill? We will be supporting the bill, but the point is that
we would have supported similar legislation if it had been
brought in, in a timely manner, two years ago. The bill will
leave the House after second reading, go through the committee
process, come back to the House, go through report and third
reading stages, and then to the other place for senators to do
their thing. Why has there been this delay on legislation which
I dare say all members of the House would support?
There are members of the House of Commons who are threatened by
organized crime directly and personally. They and their families
are directly and personally threatened by organized crime. How
close can we get to the bone when even members of the House are
threatened? I say shame on government members for taking so long
to bring in the legislation.
Bill C-22 received first reading in the House of Commons on the
December 15, 1999. The purpose of the bill is to remedy the
shortcomings in Canada's anti-money laundering legislation as
defined in the G-7's financial action task force on money
laundering in its 1997-98 report which said:
The only major weakness is the inability to effectively and
efficiently respond to requests for assistance in relation to
restraint and forfeiture. The use of domestic money laundering
proceedings to seize, restrain, and forfeit the proceeds of
offences committed in other countries is recognized as sometimes
ineffective, and legislation to allow Canada to enforce foreign
forfeiture requests directly should be introduced.
In addition, the FATF recommended that reporting requirements in
Canada be made mandatory rather than voluntary, as is currently
the case, and that a financial intelligence unit be established
to deal with the collection, management, analysis and
dissemination of suspicious transaction reports and other
relevant intelligence data.
Organized criminals, particularly in the drug trade, generate
and launder billions of dollars annually. They launder money in
order to continue their illegal operations. They move to
jurisdictions with strong controls to jurisdictions with weak or
no controls, and I have just unfortunately described where the
government has allowed Canada to fall. Financial transactions
conceal criminal profits to make them appear legitimate.
Yesterday my colleague from Surrey Central gave some examples of
the criminal use of money laundering, but it is more than just
the criminal use of money laundering. There is also the whole
issue of terrorist organizations being involved.
On January 5, 1999, a television report reported on criminal
organizations that want to launder money through Canadian
business. A multinational company trading in the stock market
was found to have ties to the Russian mob. While investigating
the company, YBM Magnex, this market investigator traced the
company's corporate history back to one of the world's top
criminals and head of the eastern European Mafia. The company,
now delisted, had stocks valued at $600 million and its principal
business was laundering money for organized crime.
The story went on to say there are an estimated $400 billion in
profits from the sale of state assets that are now looking to be
laundered. It is more than just ordinary criminal activity that
we associate with drugs. Now we are talking about the use of
money laundering to move state assets from Russia.
1140
As one investigator puts it, Canada and the U.S. are like candy
stores for criminals. The unanswered question is how many
investors were hurt with the evaporation of the $600 million
equity in YBM Magnex.
We have just seen in the last couple of days billions of dollars
removed from the stock exchange. Probably hundreds of thousands
of retail investors in Canada have been seriously hurt with their
speculation in the stock market, but this was a situation where
$600 million evaporated in value from the stock market. What
about those investors?
Even the former premier of the province of Ontario and very high
profile Canadians in the public eye were sucked into the YBM
Magnex vortex. The Ontario Stock Exchange and Securities
Commission got a deserved black eye for not adequately protecting
investors. This followed on the heels of the $6 billion Bre-X
debacle. It is little wonder Canada has a less than stellar
reputation in the global investment market.
Capital investment is what builds an economy. It is well past
time for the federal government to take its responsibilities more
seriously and to do things in a more timely manner.
As I mentioned, the member for Surrey Central yesterday gave
some good examples of how money is laundered, but what about the
issue I have raised of terrorism? According to an RCMP report,
Toronto and Montreal groups support the Tamils and Hamas.
According to the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, March 27, 2000:
Violent street gangs in Toronto and Montreal are channelling
criminal profits to Tamil terrorists waging a bloody fight for an
independent homeland in Sri Lanka, says an RCMP intelligence
report. An extensive probe by the Mounties found “strong
connections” between the outlaw gangs and the Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam, one of the world's most dangerous guerrilla
groups. “There is clear evidence to support the relationship and
that the money involved is being funnelled to the LTTE for
extremist purposes in Sri Lanka,” says the newly declassified
report, obtained through the Access to Information Act. The RCMP
implicate the Tamil criminal groups in a staggering variety of
activities, including extortion, home invasion, attempted murder,
theft, importation and sale of brown heroin, arms trafficking,
production and sale of counterfeit passports, migrant smuggling,
bank and casino fraud, and money laundering. The activity is
escalating and likely will become more difficult for police, adds
the report.
This is an exceptionally serious issue. I say one last time,
shame on the government for the unnecessary delay in bringing the
legislation to the House.
Some concerns have been raised about the legislation. Criminal
defence lawyers and the federal privacy commissioner warned the
reporting scheme could turn Canada into a nation of snitches.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service said the transaction
reporting regime could become “a bureaucratic monster”. CSIS
proposed more selective measures that would target parties known
to engage in dubious activities. A writer in the Financial
Post, Terence Corcoran, indicated:
If passed, Bill C-22 would give Ottawa fresh authority to trap
the innocent, infringe on privacy, collect mountains of
information on citizens and put routine money transactions under
suspicion. It would also conscript lawyers, banks, accountants
and others into a national subculture of informants and snitches.
In a letter to the justice minister last December, the Canadian
Bar Association listed some of the threats posed by Ottawa's plan
to increase its surveillance over money transactions greater than
$10,000. It said routine legitimate business transactions could
be disrupted and solicitor-client relationships undermined. “The
mandatory reporting of information which may be confidential is a
drastic measure and a gross intrusion into a previously protected
sphere”. The bill, it said, amounted to “restructuring the
relationship of trust between lawyers and clients”.
1145
There are protections under criminal law. I have read that:
At common law, securing a conviction for money laundering
requires the Crown to prove four elements of the offence beyond a
reasonable doubt. Specifically, it must be proven that the
accused (i) dealt with the laundered property (ii) with intent to
convert or conceal it. Moreover, the property must have been
(iii) derived from the commission of a predicate offence, and
(iv) the accused must have had knowledge of that fact. As a
result of legislative enactments, however, the Crown is now
required to prove only the accused's subjective belief that the
proceeds were derived from the commission of the predicate
offence, even if this is not the case. This allows the police to
arrange “sting” operations.
This is another tool in the ability of the police to be able to
go after that.
In addition, all the money laundering offences include a
companion offence relating to possession of proceeds, which may
result in a conviction even where the Crown is unable to prove
the laundering offence. The “possession of proceeds of crime”
provision is broader in the Criminal Code than in other statutes;
it applies to the possession of proceeds of any indictable
offence, not only to predicate offences. While these are not
money-laundering provisions themselves, they have proven useful
to police in securing convictions in the absence of sufficient
evidence to secure a conviction for a laundering offence.
I suggest that this is exactly the fine tuning the committee
will have to get into.
There will always be exceptions in criminal law, but on balance
the criminal law, as it is presently constituted, works as far as
it has gone. Late though the government may be, it is now adding
another tool to the tool kit so the police will be able to enact
enforcement. This gives us an idea of the balance between
entrapment of the innocent and effective tools of law to help our
enforcement agencies do their job.
In another article from the Montreal Gazette on December 4
1999, Tom Naylor, an economics professor at McGill University in
Montreal, wrote:
Yet money laundering is a contrived offence that has no business
in the Criminal Code. And perfectly satisfactory instruments for
stripping criminals of their ill-gotten gains already exist.
That is not the point. The point is not to strip the criminals
of their ill-gotten gains. It is a byproduct of this and other
legislation. The point is to interdict the flow of ill-gotten
gains and determine its source. By determining its source, the
police can then proceed with proper criminal investigations and
proper criminal prosecutions against people who are involved in
these illegal activities, which are not only dangerous to our
families and our society in the broader context but perhaps even
dangerous to the very sovereignty of our nation as we understand
it.
Therefore, inflammatory comments about the effect of this
legislation are not helpful in this dialogue. Sincere concerns
about ensuring that our individual rights and freedoms are
protected and sincere concerns about drawing out what the
trade-off will be are valuable contributions to this. However,
with every law there is a degree of trade-off for the person who
is involved in the illegal activity against the freedoms that we
as law-abiding citizens have a right to enjoy in our society.
Let us deal with the funding issues of this legislation.
Previous attempts to curb money laundering have been hampered at
every step by budget problems. Curbing money laundering is a
very effective weapon against the drug trade and frontline RCMP
officers risk their lives every day in the fight against
organized crime. I am not only thinking of frontline RCMP
officers who risk their lives, but I am also thinking of the
people who co-operate with the RCMP and funnel information to
them. Those people also put their lives on the line.
We have read and are aware of many situations where people have
put their lives on the line and then, due to lack of adequate
legislation, the perpetrators of the offence have been able to
either walk away or get off with a reduced charge.
1150
The benefits of crime control far outweigh the cost of
implementing the programs to curb money laundering. We must
ensure resources are available to get the job done.
I have been advised that a separate agency is required to create
protection for our freedoms. With the agency standing alone and
enforcement regimes like the police and CSIS having to
substantiate further requests through courts of law, it is
expected there will be sufficient protection for law-abiding
citizens. Again, this is something that all members of
parliament will be examining very closely when the legislation is
before a committee.
We have to make sure that we have proper laws for Canada so that
we are not a haven for the proceeds of crime. However, at the
end of the day, what we also have to be very clear about is that
when we give these tools to the enforcement officers in our
community, we also have to be sure that there are proper
safeguards built in so that law-abiding citizens are not drawn
in.
I will reflect back for a second on the YBM Magnex International
Inc. example. We also need this legislation to ensure that
law-abiding citizens are not also drawn into the vortex of the
money laundering that is currently going on within the boundaries
of our sovereign nation.
We will be supporting this legislation but not blindly. We will
be ensuring that the rights of all Canadians are protected as
this comes back to this legislature.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was somewhat heartened to hear the member opposite
talk in terms of the benefits of the bill. Of course, we on the
government side take these kinds of issues very seriously, as
well we should, because Canadians, no matter where they live in
our great country, take it seriously.
As we have done historically and specifically with regard to
this bill, we have proceeded in a timely fashion, unlike the
member opposite who thinks we should have taken more time. We
have taken the required time to review the circumstances and talk
with partners around the world, not only in terms of policing
agencies but to get the kind of bilateral and multilateral
arrangements in place that are part and parcel of the Canadian
way of doing business.
I am heartened to hear that some members opposite are indicating
that this is a good bill. It certainly underscores the
commitment of the Government of Canada to do the kinds of things
that are appropriate when it comes to this all important issue of
money laundering and the exchanges of cash that take place, et
cetera, and in trying to secure our banking and monetary systems
in a way consistent with the values of Canadians and the
international community.
As we move into more globalization in the future, would the hon.
member agree that we should bring in more partners to be a part
of this process? Should other countries in the world be
assisting in this area?
Could he also outline not only his position but especially the
Canadian Alliance's position vis-à-vis this criminal activity?
Could he perhaps, in point form fashion, outline his party's
position on the steps that would be appropriate to curtail, in a
globalized economy, these kinds of things, especially as it
relates to bringing in other partners from around the world? I
will be interested in his response.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the member. From time to time he has been quite vocal in
his criticism of the Canadian Alliance, and I do not take his
intervention today as being that.
I take it as being a very responsible intervention. I cannot
resist the temptation to say, for a change.
1155
I would suggest very gently that his statement that the
government takes these issues seriously is a catch-all phrase for
the government. I will be answering his question, but I do want
to make this statement. My criticism is that the government has
not acted in a timely fashion.
The government had a clear understanding in 1997-98, fully two
years ago, about what the expectations were of the G-7. I
seriously question the member's intervention when he says that
the government has acted in a timely fashion taken the time
required. How much time is required? The legislation in its
basic form, as it presently sits, was brought before the House
and due to the legislative calendar set up by the House leader on
behalf of the Prime Minister, who is the leader of this
government, it ended up falling off the legislative agenda for a
full 12 months. I do not think that is taking the issue
seriously and I do not think it is working in a timely fashion.
To answer the member's question, I am stating this as the
solicitor general critic for Her Majesty's Official Opposition,
the Canadian Alliance. I believe that the government, if it is
going to do the things necessary in terms of, as he puts it,
bringing on more partners and working in co-operation with other
international agencies, the government will have to step up with
more resources, more resources in legislation and more resources
in dollars and cents.
The government has squeezed the heck out of the RCMP to the
point where it did not even have wheels to be able to turn to go
down the highway. The RCMP has reached a point of rust-out. The
RCMP is a very dispirited organization at this point in terms of
its manpower because of the constant squeeze on the salaries of
the RCMP.
If the government is going to do what is necessary there has to
be full global co-operation between the Canadian government, the
other governments of the G-7, the OECD and indeed all
governments. The government cannot be seen to be what it is
presently, which is kind of treating this whole issue almost like
a poor orphan son.
The government needs to step up the resources required in order
to get the job done. I do note that the government did come
forward with some $500 million plus for the RCMP. It is a start
but it is late. The point I am trying to make is that the RCMP
requires more resources in terms of dollars and cents and CSIS
requires more resources in terms of dollars and cents, but they
also require a heavier attention by the government to this very
important issue because it permeates every part of our society.
The government is on the right track. I prod it once again
though because I do not think it is working nearly quickly enough
on this and other very important issues that relate to organized
crime and terrorism and the sharing of criminal intelligence
around the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is a rare thing for me to agree with the Canadian Alliance, but
I agree 100% with the comments by the hon. member on the job the
Liberals are doing.
We have always had to force the government to act, whether in
connection with crime, with legislative amendments, or other
things that had to be done.
Take, for example, the $1,000 bill. A while ago, they announced
their intention of taking it out of circulation. The Bloc
Quebecois has been calling for this famous $1000 bill to be
withdrawn ever since 1994, because this was one of only a few
countries with such a high denomination.
1200
We are well aware that these notes were used by organized crime.
I realize that the member opposite does not like to hear the
truth, that he is running away to avoid hearing it, but the Bloc
Quebecois had to introduce private members' bills in this House
to convince the government to take the $1,000 notes out of
circulation.
The issue of money laundering and the introduction of a measure
similar to Bill C-22 were discussed as early as during the Bloc
Quebecois' first mandate. The issue was also part of our
platform in 1997. Everyone knew that there was a major money
laundering problem in Canada.
It was only after the Americans ridiculed it that the government
opposite finally decided to do something about this problem.
The Liberals had better not tell us that they have been diligent
in this area. I fully agree with the Canadian Alliance member
about the government's negligence. Since the Liberals took
office, and while they were not taking any action, between $80
billion and $100 billion were laundered in the Canadian economy.
This is unacceptable.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, of course we are in
agreement. It is unusual for the Canadian Alliance to agree with
the Bloc on many things. Clearly, when one of the members of the
Bloc Quebecois has been threatened by organized crime in his
constituency, we must pull together. This brings the importance
of this to the attention of the House.
On another up note, as a result of a Bloc Quebecois motion which
I believe was supported 100% by the House, a subcommittee has
been struck to examine the whole issue of organized crime in
Canada. I commend the Bloc Quebecois for that. The subcommittee
was struck just two days ago. The committee chair has been named
and we will start to work on this issue.
Again, I agree with the Bloc it is unfortunate that the
opposition has had to push the Liberal government so hard to get
it to do the things necessary to get on with the very important
job of protecting Canadian society.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-22.
We should make it clear right off that the bill was introduced
by the Minister of Finance. It is surprising from its title,
because it could have been introduced by the Minister of Justice
or even the Solicitor General of Canada. This bill is entitled
an act to facilitate combatting the laundering of proceeds of
crime, to establish the financial transactions and reports
analysis centre of Canada and to amend and repeal certain acts
in consequence.
From the contents of the bill, we can see that the Minister of
National Revenue is the minister primarily concerned, since the
bill concerns a number of matters relating to income.
The fact that this bill could have been introduced by a variety
of ministers is not insignificant. It means that Bill C-22
involves of matter of some scope affecting various facets of our
society.
Bill C-22 is in fact a tool to help us fight a scourge, whose
impact can be felt on the streets, in the schools, in the vaults
of our financial institutions and in our penitentiaries. It is
even felt by our farmers, as we saw last fall, and in a number
of economic, social and even cultural sectors of our community.
This scourge has a name. It is called organized crime. It
comprises many aspects: the bikers, the Italian mafia, the
Russian mafia, the Asian triads, street gangs and so on. Each
aspect operates in its own way and has its own varied and
effective methods of intimidation.
Thus, members will understand that organized crime is an evil
poisoning our lives in many ways. And it is precisely because
it is organized that this type of crime is so hard to fight.
1205
There is only one way this can be done: we must get organized
ourselves. This means that, like crime, justice must be
organized. We must also provide adequate funding—I am happy to
hear members of other parties in the House say so—to the police
to help it organize its efforts. Stiff measures are needed and
they must be organized. In a nutshell, it would be better if we
started calling the shots or others will keep calling them for
us.
But all this is not easy—far from it. Organized crime is not
just the occupation of a few influential masterminds.
It is no longer the playground of people like Al Capone and the
mobsters of the early 1900s.
Organized crime involves many kinds of individuals, some of whom
may often bear a strong resemblance to you or me. Most of them
are anonymous members of the public who appear to lead their
lives in an entirely above-board and ordinary manner. All the
players in organized crime do not bear some easily identifiable
mark. On the contrary, the people involved in organized crime
are often anonymous.
Obviously, there is a more visible type of crime that often
makes the news and appears in the headlines. There was the
biker war that was splashed all over the media a while back, and
which makes a return appearance from time to time. But the
whole biker war phenomenon is only the tip of the iceberg.
Members will therefore understand that the phenomenon we are now
seeing is extremely complex. It was time that the government
suggested some effective responses to one of the most harmful
aspects of organized crime, money laundering.
On more than one occasion, the Bloc Quebecois has been critical
of the failure of Canadian legislation to prevent money
laundering. Even so, the government waited until Canada found
itself in the unenviable position of money laundering centre of
the world before it decided to take action. It was high time
that Canada did something because it has become, in the opinion
of many international experts, a real sieve.
What exactly is “money laundering”? It is the process by which
revenue from criminal activities is converted into assets that
are difficult to trace to their criminal origins.
What is involved here is the concealment of the proceeds of
crime by making them appear legitimate. The bulk of these
assets are related to drug trafficking, and most of the rest to
criminal activities such as robbery or cigarette smuggling.
Since, by their very nature, money laundering and the criminal
activities it attempts to camouflage are clandestine activities,
it is hard to have any clear idea of the scope of money
laundering activities. According to experts, however, the
annual figure for the laundering of the proceeds of organized
crime is about $17 billion.
What weapons did we have, then, against such a huge problem?
Far from enough. A brief overview of Canadian legislation would
be appropriate here.
Hon. members will recall that the federal government passed
legislation in 1988 amending the Criminal Code, the Food and
Drugs Act, and the Narcotics Act, creating a distinct criminal
offence of money laundering and providing for the seizure and
forfeiture of the proceeds and property derived from various
criminal and drug offences.
1210
Section 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code provides that everyone is
guilty of an offence who deals in any way with property or
proceeds of property with the intent of concealing or converting
them, while knowing or believing that all or part are derived,
directly or indirectly, from the commission of either an
enterprise crime offence or a designated substance offence.
The Criminal Code includes a list of 35 crimes coming under the
definition of enterprise crime offence.
We can see that something has been around since 1988, but we
have to look at the decisions, the jurisprudence directly
concerned with this section to realize it is inadequate, that it
is insufficient to effectively fight crime. There is no need to
be a great expert in criminal law to recognize this. It is
enough to visit the courts to see how easy it is for a defence
lawyer to get around these sections.
In 1991, there were other amendments to the Proceeds of Crime
(Money Laundering) Act. Legislation was enacted in an extremely
important area—financial institutions, real estate brokers,
portfolio managers, and so on. It provided that, for any
transaction of over $10,000 of a suspicious nature, information
was to be taken and kept for five years.
However, this was left to the discretion of the institution.
When a client of a financial institution has several million
thousand dollars, and his portfolio is managed there, members
will understand the reticence of the financial institution to
report these sums. There is a problem.
In the last election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois included an
approach in its platform to tighten things up, to provide major
legislation to fight money laundering. Finally, the government
seems to have understood with Bill C-22.
In introducing this bill, the government significantly remedies
the situation by establishing three mechanisms to control
suspicious transactions. The first is the mechanism of
mandatory reporting of suspicious operations, as provided in
clauses 5 to 11 of the bill.
The second is a mechanism for the reporting of major cross
border movements of currency, as provided in clauses 12 to 39.
The third is the establishment of the financial transactions and
report analysis centre of Canada, as defined in clauses 40 to 72.
Let us examine these mechanisms and the centre. With Bill C-22,
the reporting of suspicious operations relating to money
laundering, currently voluntary under existing provisions of the
law, would become mandatory.
In addition, the obligation to report would extend to non
banking financial institutions and certain other companies.
Therefore, the reporting requirements would apply to regulated
financial institutions, casinos, foreign exchange traders, stock
brokers, insurance companies and persons acting as financial
intermediaries, such as lawyers and accountants.
These people and institutions would be required to report
certain categories of financial transactions and any other
transaction regarding which there are reasonable grounds to
believe that they are connected with the laundering of money.
1215
Second, when it comes to transborder operations, people who
import or export considerable amounts of currency or
instruments, such as travellers cheques, will be required to
report these sums of money to Canadian customs officers.
If a Canadian travels to the United States and takes $35,000 in
travellers cheques for a three day trip or, conversely, if an
American comes to Canada with $35,000 in travellers cheques or
in cash, we are justified in asking questioning that person if
he is only going to be in Canada for two or three days, or even
just a few hours.
Failure to comply with this requirement could lead to the
seizure of the currency or instruments carried by the
individual, unless he gives up the idea of importing or
exporting these sums of money. He can decide to go back to his
country of origin.
Third, the financial transactions and reports analysis centre of
Canada is an independent government agency that will collect and
analyse the information provided on financial transactions and
transborder movements involving currency.
The centre will also be a central repository for information on
money laundering activities. It will analyse and assess the
reports submitted and, if necessary, give leads to law
enforcement agencies.
As I said earlier, the government opposite should have acted
sooner.
It should not have waited until Canada had a reputation as a
major centre of organized crime before taking action. The
government should have been much more proactive. It should have
listened to the Bloc Quebecois.
It is odd that Bill C-22 has finally made it to the House a few
weeks before a parliamentary committee begins looking at the
issue of organized crime. Members will recall that I introduced
a motion in the House a while back calling for the creation of a
committee to examine this issue and to propose amendments to the
legislation, if necessary, or other approaches. The
parliamentary committee will study the issue and report to the
House on the whole question of organized crime.
A few weeks before they start their deliberations, the
government introduces Bill C-22 on money laundering.
The government probably did not want to be criticized for having
taken no action in this regard, but the usual drill is that
every time the government opposite takes action, it is because
the Bloc Quebecois has pushed it right to the wall.
It was the Bloc Quebecois that initiated the anti-gang
legislation passed just before the last federal election. The
Bloc Quebecois had questioned the government, which decided to
do something about the problem just before heading into a
general election.
It was the Bloc Quebecois that took the initiative with respect
to getting the $1,000 bill withdrawn from circulation, and the
government listened to us. With respect to Bill C-22 now before
us, again it was the Bloc Quebecois, in its first term of
office, specifically in its 1997 election platform, which said
that the federal parliament should bring in legislation to do
something about money laundering.
Finally, the government over there had no other choice, since
the Americans have even told it Canada was an all-round champion
as far as money laundering is concerned, but to decide to comply
with the Bloc Quebecois' demands by introducing the bill we now
have before us.
I have already mentioned the $1,000 note. It is extremely
important for the government to heed us on this, and withdraw it
from circulation as soon as possible. It is used mainly by
organized crime, and must therefore be pulled, so that only
denominations of $10, $20, $50 and $100 are available. It takes
a whole lot fewer $1,000 notes to make $1 million, and is far
less unwieldy, than $1 million in $10s, $20s or $50s.
1220
Care must be taken, however, not to see Bill C-22 as a solution
to all our problems. We must point out that this bill does give
the government considerable regulatory power. Clause 73 of the
bill in fact authorizes the Governor in Council, on the
recommendation of the Minister, to “make any regulations that
the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the
purposes and provisions of this Act”.
At first glance, the regulatory power assigned to the minister
may seem extremely broad, even too broad, one might say.
Although such power could eventually bring about changes in the
law without the need to amend it, still, a number of important
issues, which should be debated by parliamentarians, will be
handed over to officials. That is a bit risky.
Here is an example. The government will set, by regulation, the
amount requiring reporting. Under subclause 12(2) as well,
regulatory conditions will determine whether individuals may be
exempt from the requirement of producing such a report.
Knowing that the required report is the backbone of the
mechanisms put in place by Bill C-22, we can see that the
government is giving itself vast regulatory powers.
With its history, I fear that the government is not too eager to
tighten the screw, to require reports, which are difficult to
prepare, from offenders, and to be too demanding about the
reports people or groups are to do. The public may rest
assured, however, that we on this side of the House will be very
demanding.
I would be derelict in my duties if I did not mention that Bill
C-22 raises significant questions about the protection of
certain basic rights covered by the charter.
In a free and democratic society, the legislator may limit
certain individual rights, as dictated by the larger interests
of the community. However, this limitation must not be
exercised outside certain rules. Bill C-22 must comply with
certain basic procedural rules.
In fact, in the case of seizures and searches, great care must
be exercised in the drafting of the bill to prevent effective
contest before the courts.
Work in committee will ensure us that these standards are
met, before the bill is passed. If parliamentarians fail to
examine in minute detail the impact of this bill, lawyers who
are well paid by organized crime will review it and arrange to
have this law declared illegal and unconstitutional. It is up
to us to work properly and effectively on this bill.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-22, which will
create a new agency to oversee and try to prevent money
laundering in Canada, the financial transactions and reports
analysis centre of Canada.
Bill C-22 would bring Canada up to date with the standards of
our G-7 trading partners. It does not take us beyond the minimum
standard, but it takes us up to that standard. It covers
professionals, lawyers and chartered accountants, and even stock
brokers and investment bankers would have responsibility to
report under this legislation. It does not include, as in some
other countries, a “know your client” rule, which would go much
further in policing money laundering.
The responsibility to report suspicious transactions is
described in this legislation, but it is not really spelled out
in terms of what would define a suspicious transaction. I have
some concerns about that. I would hope that as the legislation
progresses we would define in a more comprehensive way what
criteria would be required for an agency, an individual or a
professional to define a transaction as being suspicious.
1225
It would also expand the reporting by financial agencies of any
transactions over $10,000 beyond banks. Currently banks report
voluntarily. This would expand to include money marts and
casinos. It does not delve into the retail side of commerce,
which perhaps should be considered.
I have some concerns about that. Earlier I heard some members
refer to the potential of the legislation being expanded at some
point to include retail operations, for instance, jewellers or
car dealers, where allegedly this type of money laundering exists
quite a bit in terms of large sum purchases.
I would caution against expanding the scope too much, thereby
creating a regulatory nightmare that would be extremely difficult
to administer and could potentially have a negative impact in
terms of the abilities of Canada's retailers to actually keep up
with the paperwork and other requirements.
The legislation addresses cash transactions but does not address
what is really the greater current and future issue of e-commerce
or e-laundering.
It is very difficult to track financial transactions today that
occur over the Internet or electronic financial transactions,
particularly with sophisticated financial vehicles or
instruments, for instance, derivatives. It is possible to hide
transactions through derivatives and other financial instruments.
In fact, cross-border electronic transactions, from a tax
perspective, are becoming increasingly difficult to tax.
I would suggest to the government that the legislation is
definitely long overdue, but that it addresses a problem which is
really yesterday's problem, as opposed to addressing a problem
which is clearly a problem of today and the future, that of
electronically based money laundering.
The whole issue of smurfing, breaking large transactions into
smaller units to get them below the $10,000 threshold which would
trigger some level of activity by the new agency, is a real
issue. For instance, in terms of deposits, several people could
use various bank machines to deposit cash into the same account.
Something as simple as a bank machine could play a role in money
laundering, simply by breaking down transactions into smaller
amounts to bring the transactions below the threshold that would
trigger some level of investigation.
I am also concerned about the budget of the agency. I
understand that the budget would be anywhere between $7.5 million
and $10 million. Some suggestion has been made that there would
be about a hundred people doing this.
I would suggest that it may be a very, very difficult job to
police this type of activity with that size of budget. It sounds
to some as a large budget, but I would suggest it is not really a
very large budget at all.
I would also suggest to the government, as this agency and the
government investigates ways to police the electronic money
laundering side of it, that the government look toward some of
the private sector solutions.
What I am speaking of are some of the companies that have
developed technologies to deal with these issues—security issues
on the Internet, et cetera—which may in fact be outpacing the
technological advances capable of being developed by government.
I think there will have to be some private-public sector
engagement on some of these issues, particularly as we delve into
the new world of electronic commerce.
1230
I have some concerns about Bill C-22. The legislation would
create a new agency that is at arm's length from the government.
That is positive from the perspective of preventing political
interference in an investigation, but it is negative from the
perspective that this new, all powerful agency could conceivably
overstep its boundaries on an investigation of an individual
case.
A Canadian citizen being persecuted by this agency on a given
case would not have the protection offered by ministerial
intervention to potentially defend that citizen. Only if
systemic abuse is suspected would the minister be able to
intervene. Whenever I see these new agencies, whether it is the
new Revenue Canada agency or this new agency to police money
laundering, I have some concerns about the lack of direct
ministerial accountability and potential intervention on behalf
of an individual Canadian who may be treated unfairly by one of
these agencies.
Another concern I have is that this new agency would have the
power to release information to Revenue Canada in accordance with
the act. If reasonable grounds existed for the agency to believe
that money laundering had occurred, there would be potential for
abuse.
We have to be very clear that if the agency has some reasonable
grounds to pursue an individual case of money laundering, that is
one thing. However, if the agency does not have enough evidence
to pursue a case of money laundering and determines that while
the evidence does not exist it may be able to get the person on
tax evasion, conceivably the agency could release the information
to Revenue Canada. This would help Revenue Canada or the new
Revenue Canada agency pursue the individual. Therefore, while
there may not be a case against an individual for money
laundering, this agency could potentially help the new Revenue
Canada agency in pursuing someone on a tax evasion charge.
That is absolutely, fundamentally wrong. The two agencies have
to be separate. Unless there are very clear grounds for a case
of money laundering, it would be wrong for this agency to work
with Revenue Canada on individual cases or to share information.
We have to ensure on behalf of Canadian taxpayers that this does
not become some souped up Revenue Canada annex or addendum.
If the new agency had reasonable grounds to suspect money
laundering, that is one thing. However, if it was simply a case
where it did not have enough grounds to pursue someone on that
basis and determined that there was some level of evidence for
tax evasion, it would be clearly wrong for the sharing of
information to exist.
It is still nebulous as to whether or not this agency would have
the ability to do spot or random audits on banks, money marts or
casinos. I would assume that would be the case but it has to be
spelled out. Again, we have to ensure in our pursuit of doing
something that is valuable and important, which is policing and
reducing the incidents of money laundering, that we do not create
some new godzilla agency that would have an immense amount of
power to hurt legitimate Canadian enterprise, impede legitimate
Canadian transactions, and effectively pursue some of the
negative and oppressive activities we have seen from Revenue
Canada in the past.
Those are my cautions. We are supporting this legislation with
some concerns. We hope as this evolves, the government's
policies on some of these issues will become more proactive in
terms of addressing the real issues of today and in the future,
and in particular embrace the notion of the electronic issues
facing Canadians and law enforcement agencies.
1235
Again these border on questions of resources. I have significant
concerns with the extent to which the government has starved
Canada's law enforcement agencies. It has prevented the RCMP
from having the ability to enforce some of Canada's laws. As we
expand these types of oversight agencies we have to ensure they
are properly funded and that we give them the tools to do the
job.
In that regard it may be very important for the government to
consider some level of private participation. At least it should
dialogue with the private sector on the electronic commerce side
to ensure that the government is using the most up to date
technologies to address these issues. A lot of these
technologies exist in the private sector. The government should
be more responsive to those forces and more amenable to work with
private sector entities within Canada and elsewhere to develop
solutions to these very real problems.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-22 which
deals with money laundering. As my colleagues on this side of the
House have pointed out, this has been a long time coming from the
government. We are the last of the G-7 countries to get around
to doing something about money laundering.
One of the great scourges of our modern society is the illegal
movement of products such as drugs. That has an effect on our
society. It affects the minds of our young kids. They get
themselves bent out of shape by using drugs. It ruins their
careers. It ruins their futures, ruins their minds and ruins
their potential. It also leads them into crime to generate the
cash required to pay for the drugs and to keep the cartels
supplied with billions of dollars in profits.
The proceeds of these drugs move through many countries in many
ways in order to get into this country. People stand there with
their hands out. They know it is illegal and illicit and
therefore they are capable of demanding some kind of payment, a
form of bribery, for them to turn their eyes in another direction
as the drugs pass by. We in the House have talked about crime and
how young kids feel the need to commit crimes such as shoplifting
and a lot worse than that in many cases, in order to feed and pay
for their habit.
I am glad the government is doing something about money
laundering. Most of us have no real concept of how big the
movement of drugs is and the amount of money, the billions of
dollars that are moving around because of it. I understand that
the largest cash based industry in British Columbia today is the
growth of marijuana. The export of marijuana across the country
and to other parts of the world is perhaps one of the largest
industries in British Columbia today. That is shocking.
I have met with parliamentarians in other parts of the world. I
am thinking of parliamentarians in South America. I recently
attended a speech by our ambassador for Colombia who was here in
Ottawa telling us about the situation there. We were told of the
insurrection, the track that the government is losing control of
its own country. In essence there is a civil war going on, not
between two factions over who should rule the country, but the
drug cartels do not want government anywhere near the growth of
the drugs or the plants that produce the drugs.
The cartels have their own air forces. They are able to fly the
drugs out of South America through the Caribbean and up to the
United States and Canada. This is a scourge on our society.
1240
Money laundering is only one part of it. I want to broaden the
debate. Money laundering deals with the movement of cash by
illicit and illegal means but it is not just drugs we are talking
about. We see bribery and corruption in all parts of the world.
Believe it or not, Canada is not exempt; it happens here too.
There are horrendous problems in South America. A year ago the
commissioners of the European Union had to resign because of
corruption. Members may have read about it in the paper. In
Canada in the Prime Minister's riding, police investigations are
going on because of potential misappropriation of government
funds. If this is proven to be so, this would also be
corruption. It is everywhere.
We read about it in the papers in the United States. Numerous
elected officials in senior positions have been bought. I read
one article just the other day regarding a governor who insisted
on a $400,000 payment before he would vote in a certain way. It
goes on. China has acknowledged that corruption is a major
problem.
I would hope that we would start to do something about it.
Transparency and openness is how to deal with bribery and
corruption. It has to be brought out into the open so everybody
can see what is going on. If a transaction cannot stand up to
the light of day, it is likely illegal. If it is automatically
going to be exposed in the light of day, it likely will not
happen in the first place.
Look at what has happened with the HRDC scandal. Numerous audits
were done and none of them were brought out into the open. On
January 20 the last HRDC audit became part of the public debate.
What has happened since then? The minister has told us that
there has been a major review of all processes that go on in the
department to ensure that the administration of the programs will
now be done properly. Why were they not done properly before?
Because there was no openness, no accountability and no
transparency. We were not privy to the fact that previous audits
had slammed that department and the administration of the files.
It gets sloppy.
People with power and influence start using their influence and
now numerous police investigations are going on. If these result
in convictions, then that will show there has been corruption
right here.
I am glad the world is finally waking up to the fact that
bribery and corruption are perhaps the greatest scourge to
economic development around the world. People with power and
influence skim 10% and 20% right off the top and the money is
going straight into Swiss bank accounts. There are also the
people at the bottom end of the economic scale who, because they
do not get paid enough money, have no choice but to insist on
bribes for the work that they do or do not do.
1245
In some cases we have people in positions of influence and
power, such as policemen writing tickets or others granting
permits, insisting on bribes to feed a large group of people or
an extended family that depends on them for support because there
is no cash in the economy.
We need economic development. We want to help the poor not only
in this country but around the world. We can help the poor by
attacking this cancer on society, the scourge of bribery and
corruption. The OECD passed a protocol that was endorsed by a
number of countries including Canada which says that bribery in a
foreign country is no longer a tax deduction but a crime to be
prosecuted in the home state. These are small beginnings.
I compare the current attitude on bribery and corruption to the
position of society on the environment and human rights back in
the 1960s. When we talked about the environment and our concern
for the degradation of the environment in those days, people said
that it was awful and asked why somebody did not do something
about it. Then they would continue their daily routines.
It is 30 years later and the environment is now a core issue not
only of this government and this country but of every developed
country around the world. It is a core part of policy making.
When they make policy the environment is a major consideration.
Human rights is the same. Back in the 1960s when people's human
rights were being violated around the world, they would say it
was awful and that somebody should do something about it, and
they would continue their daily routines. Today we have war
crimes tribunals. We have agreements and protocols. We insist
on human rights when we enter into other agreements. Human
rights is now a core principle of democracy.
I hope in a number of years, and hopefully not too many years
from now, that the battle against bribery and corruption will
also be at the core of civilized society in order for us to
ensure that economic benefits accrue to all in society and that
the cream or the profit is not ripped off illegally by those who
happen to have power and influence.
It is everywhere. I have heard numerous examples, small and
large. I will not bore the House with the details, but I would
like to see the government and Canadians recognizing that bribery
and corruption can and should be fought at every turn.
Bill C-22 on money laundering is a small start. I hope we will
continue on from here and join forces with parliamentarians in
other parts of the world to ensure that we carry the momentum
forward so that in a number of years from now not only will we
say that the environment and human rights are at the core of our
policy making but that the fight against bribery and corruption
is also at the core of our policy making.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
* * *
1250
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
Hon. Maria Minna (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act
and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to second
reading of Bill C-25, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999.
Even though the 2000 budget was brought down in February, hon.
members can appreciate that the legislation before us today stems
from the 1999 budget. These are the measures that should be the
primary focus of this debate.
[Translation]
Bill C-25 seeks to implement a large number of initiatives
designed to ensure tax fairness, including personal income tax
measures, announced in the February 1999 budget, and certain
other measures dealing with the demutualization of insurance
corporations, the fiscal situation of the trust established by
the federal and provincial governments to provide compensation
to hepatitis C victims, and the taxation of first nations.
[English]
Before I discuss the specifics of the bill, however, I will take
a moment to put the legislation in context. The fundamentals of
our government's tax policy are crystal clear.
First, our approach to tax relief must be fair, which means
starting with those who need it most, low and middle income
Canadians, especially families with children. Second, we must
place priority on personal income taxes where the burden is
greatest and where we are most out of line with other countries.
Third, we have to ensure that Canada has an internationally
competitive business tax system. Fourth, because of our debt
burden, tax relief must not be financed with borrowed money.
The government remains committed to providing substantial tax
relief to Canadians on an ongoing basis. Last fall Canadians
were promised in both the Speech from the Throne and the Minister
of Finance's economic and fiscal update that the government would
set out a multi-year plan for further tax reductions.
Budget 2000 delivered on that commitment through a five year tax
reduction plan which indexes the tax system against inflation,
reduces the middle tax rate and overall cuts taxes by at least
$58 billion by the year 2004, an average annual tax cut of 15%
with even greater relief for families with children. It is a
plan that will provide further real and lasting tax relief for
all Canadians, but it is also a plan whose foundations were laid
in previous budgets, including the one of 1999.
Getting back to that budget and the legislation at hand, hon.
members know that tax revenues finance important government
programs that Canadians need and value such as health care and
education. Therefore, there must be a balance between keeping
taxes low and providing a source of revenue for vital social and
economic programs.
[Translation]
If they are to become permanent, tax relief measures must be
affordable and they must not jeopardize the soundness of
Canada's finances.
For the first time since 1965, the 1999 budget provided an
opportunity to offer tax relief to all taxpayers, without the
government having to borrow money. Low and middle income
Canadians are the ones who will benefit most from these
measures.
[English]
Each of our budgets to date has provided targeted tax relief to
achieve social and economic goals. Areas of support include
students, charities, persons with disabilities and the children
of parents with low incomes, groups where it would be most
beneficial.
Eliminating the deficit in 1997-98 opened the door for the
government to begin broad based tax relief measures.
The 1999 budget builds on these measures as part of our long term
strategy to permanently reduce taxes.
1255
Together the 1997, 1998 and 1999 budgets reduced the income tax
burden of Canadians by some 10%. This is a significant step, but
we have moved further. Combined with the actions in the 2000
budget, annual personal income tax reductions will total 22% on
average by the year 2004-05.
The measures in Bill C-25 go a long way toward helping the
government reach this target. This is the context within which
today's debate on Bill C-25 is taking place. These measures are
all part of the government's commitment to tax fairness and our
long term tax reduction strategy.
[Translation]
Initially, three comprehensive tax relief measures were
announced in the 1999 budget, and these measures are all
included in the bill before us. Provided this legislation is
promulgated, each of these measures will be effective July 1, 1999.
First, the amount of tax exempt income that Canadians may earn
has been increased. Budget 2000 raises this amount further, but
that will be discussed in another debate.
[English]
Under the present income tax system basic personal, spousal and
equivalent to spouse credits ensure that individuals and families
receive a basic amount of income tax free. The 1998 budget
raised the amount of money low income Canadians could receive on
a tax free basis by $500. The 1999 budget extends this relief to
all taxpayers and increases that amount by a further $175.
As a result of these two measures all taxpayers will benefit
from a basic personal credit sufficient to allow the receipt of
up to $7,131 of tax free income. That is an increase of $675
over what was available in 1997, and in budget 2000 we increased
that even further.
The amount upon which the spousal credit is calculated will also
be increased by $675 to $6,055. The threshold where the spousal
credit begins to be reduced will increase from $538 to $606. In
addition, the bill eliminates the general 3% surtax for all
taxpayers.
With the books balanced, the 1998 budget was able to eliminate
this surtax for taxpayers earning under $50,000 and reduce it for
those with incomes between $50,000 and $65,000. Now it is
abolished completely. Together the 1998 and 1999 budget measures
removed 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls and reduced taxes
for all 15.7 million Canadian taxpayers.
While all taxpayers will benefit from these measures, low income
earners will have the most to gain. For example, under the 1999
budget measures a single filer earning $15,000 will pay 15% less
federal tax while a similar individual earning $30,000 will pay
6% less tax.
I have more examples. A typical one earner family of four that
receives an annual income of $30,000 or less will pay no net
federal income tax. A similar family earning $40,000 will enjoy
a 15% federal income tax reduction.
[Translation]
I will now deal with some of the other tax equity budget
measures contained in the bill before us, beginning with income
splitting among children who are minors.
As members know, the progressive structure of the rates is one
of the basic principles of our personal income tax system. It
goes without saying that high income individuals are in a better
position to absorb a higher tax rate than lower income earners
are.
[English]
Income splitting occurs when high income individuals arrange to
divert income to low income earners, generally family members, to
avoid tax.
1300
The tax benefits of income splitting can usually only be
accomplished by high income individuals with dependants. Even
then, these arrangements are only effective for certain types of
income.
As hon. members will appreciate, a tax system that enables some
to income split through corporate structuring while denying it to
others is not sustainable both in pragmatic terms and from a tax
fairness perspective. Fair taxation based upon a taxpayer's
ability to pay, which is reflected through the progressive rate
structure and uniformly applied, is the only sustainable
approach.
To improve the fairness and integrity of our tax system the bill
introduces a special tax aimed specifically at structures
designed to split income with minors. Applied at the top
marginal rate on the income of individuals aged 17 or under at
the end of a taxation year, the types of income to which this
special tax would apply include taxable dividends and other
shareholder benefits on unlisted shares of Canadian and foreign
companies received from a trust or partnership, and income from a
partnership or trust where the income is derived from a business
carried on by a relative of the child.
Another measure in the bill deals with retroactive lump sum
payments on which individuals are taxed in the year payment is
received, even though a significant portion may relate to prior
years.
[Translation]
Because of the progressive rate structure of the income tax
system, the tax payable on these payments can be appreciably
higher than it would have been if payments had been staggered
and taxed upon receipt.
Those who receive eligible retroactive lump sum payments of
$3,000 or more will be able to calculate the tax under a special
relief mechanism.
[English]
Income eligible under this mechanism will include certain office
or employment income, superannuation or pension benefits, spousal
or taxable child support arrears and EI benefits.
Another measure in Bill C-25 affects Hutterite colonies which
for income tax purposes qualify as communal organizations. These
organizations own property on a collective basis and typically
carry on farming and related businesses. They are subject to
section 143 of the Income Tax Act, which is meant to subject
their income to a level of taxation that is roughly comparable to
the level of taxation on farming income earned outside these
organizations. This is achieved by allowing the income earned by
these organizations to be allocated among their adult members.
However, the method of allocation of income for communal
organizations has remained the same since the mid-1970s. This
method has permitted income to be allocated to only one spouse
per family in a communal organization, while general income tax
rules have been changed to make wages and salaries paid to
spouses employed in farming and other businesses tax deductible.
This is despite the fact that, generally speaking, each adult in
a communal organization makes a direct contribution to the income
generating business activities of the organization.
Therefore, in order to maintain a roughly equivalent level of
taxation on income earned by communal organizations and on
general farming income, the tax burden on communal organizations
would be reduced by allowing allocations of income to both
spouses in a family under section 143.
The bill also deals with misrepresentations by third parties.
[Translation]
Criminal and civil penalties are imposed when taxpayers
attempt to evade payment of their fair share of taxes through
fiscal misrepresentation. However, there is no specific rule
for assessing the application of civil penalties to
individuals who make false statements regarding the fiscal
obligations of another taxpayer.
[English]
This bill introduces two civil penalties applicable to third
parties who make false statements that could be used for tax
purposes. One concerns tax shelter and other tax planning
arrangements. The other concerns advising or participating in a
false tax filing.
1305
These changes stem from various recommendations made by the
auditor general, the public accounts committee and the technical
committee on business taxation.
The integrity of the tax system and the market for professional
tax services are not well served if the tax law does not provide
for the application of civil penalties against those who make
false statements which could be used by a taxpayer for a purpose
under the tax law.
A culpable conduct test, consistent with the types of conduct
which the courts have in the past applied civil penalties to
taxpayers under the tax law, will be instituted. This test
applies to conduct which is tantamount to intentional conduct,
shows an indifference as to whether the tax law is complied with,
or demonstrates a wilful, reckless or wanton disregard of the
law.
The bill also provides a reliance on good faith exception to the
culpable conduct standard. However, this exception will not
apply to persons who promote or sell tax shelter arrangements, as
these arrangements have the potential to adversely affect the tax
base and taxpayers to which such arrangements are promoted.
As well, the Minister of National Revenue has indicated that the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will be taking special
administrative procedures in respect of the third party penalty
proposal. In particular, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
will conduct a head office review before assessing any third
party civil penalty. It will also be seeking private sector
input on the development of guidelines for the administration of
third party civil penalty rules.
I now want to discuss the tax situation which arises when a
holder of an RRSP or a RRIF dies and the value of the RRSP or
RRIF is included in the holder's income for the year of their
death. This income inclusion is offset by RRSP or RRIF
distributions made after death to a surviving spouse. This same
offset is available to financially dependent children or
grandchildren, but currently with the restriction that this
treatment is only available where there is no surviving spouse.
[Translation]
In both cases, these distributions are included in the income of
beneficiaries. When the beneficiary is a spouse, a minor or a
disabled child, there are mechanisms which allow the tax on
these distributions to be carried forward.
[English]
The 1999 budget removes this restriction. When there is a
surviving spouse but the RRSPs or RRIFs have been left to
dependent children, they, not the deceased's estate, are
responsible for any resulting income inclusions.
This tax treatment is beneficial because income tax rates for
dependent children would be expected to be low. It is meant to
provide tax assistance to dependent children at the time of a
parent's death.
Turning now to tax relief for Canadians with disabilities, hon.
members are aware of the government's continuing commitment to
help these Canadians by building on the assistance that is
already available. In the last two years additional assistance
has been provided through such measures as a caregiver tax
credit, a refundable tax credit for low income earners with high
medical expenses, and the addition of new eligible expenses under
the medical expense tax credit, the METC.
The METC is being extended further to cover expenses for the
care of people with severe disabilities living in a group home,
therapy for those with severe disabilities and tutoring for the
learning disabled. In addition, talking textbooks for
individuals with perceptual disabilities who are enrolled in
educational institutions will be included on the list of eligible
equipment for persons with disabilities.
Moving on to another tax credit, some hon. members may be aware
that the production or processing of electrical energy, or steam
for sale, was not eligible for the manufacturing and processing
profits tax credit. Given the changes and restructuring that the
electricity generating industry is currently undergoing
throughout North America, there is now increased competitive
pressure on Canadian producers of electricity.
1310
To help this sector compete, corporations producing electrical
energy for sale or steam for use in such production will now be
eligible for the manufacturing and processing tax credit.
[Translation]
Bill C-25 also regularizes the situation where interest is
calculated with respect to a corporation on an underpayment of
income taxes for one taxation year, while interest is
concurrently owed to the same corporation on a tax payment that
is higher by an equal amount for a different taxation year.
The fact that the interest on the refund is taxable while the
unpaid interest is not deductible results in a net cost to the
corporation. The discrepancy in interest rates only makes
matters worse.
[English]
This situation is not unusual, as corporations with complex tax
returns are often in a position where multiple taxation years are
reassessed at the same time and income and expenses reallocated
from one taxation year to another. Bill C-25 institutes a
relieving mechanism, enabling a corporation to request that both
amounts be offset for interest calculation purposes.
Canada's investment services industry is another area where fine
tuning is required due to the rapid growth of mutual funds and
other investment vehicles. Canadian service providers are
concerned that foreign funds which engage them may be taxable in
Canada because of our tax rules. A new rule, and I can reassure
the House that this is not a tax exemption, ensures that engaging
a Canadian firm to provide certain investment services does not
mean that a non-resident investment fund is carrying on business
in Canada.
[Translation]
Where this rule applies, Canadian corporations with customers in
other countries will continue to pay tax in Canada on their
profits. Similarly, foreign funds receiving revenue of Canadian
origin remain subject to Canadian income tax.
This measure will help the Canadian investment services sector
to compete internationally.
[English]
Investments by individuals in labour sponsored venture capital
corporations, or LSVCCs, is another area where the federal
government provides generous tax assistance in the form of a tax
credit. Many provinces provide similar assistance. Measures
were announced last year to help LSVCCs continue to be important
suppliers of venture capital to small and medium size businesses.
The 1999 budget contains additional measures to encourage LSVCCs
to focus more on small business investments and to clarify the
rules that apply when a LSVCC is part of a merger or other
corporate restructuring.
A final budget measure in the bill further extends the surcharge
on large deposit making institutions under part VI of the Income
Tax Act to October 31, 2000. This 12% capital tax surcharge was
introduced in the 1995 budget and extended in subsequent budgets.
Let me now provide hon. members with a brief overview of the
measures in the bill which were not part of the 1999 budget.
First, the bill helps to implement taxation agreements with
first nations by providing for a reduction in federal tax for
individuals who are subject to the income tax legislation of
certain first nations. This amendment puts the federal
government's tax sharing agreements with self-governing Yukon
first nations into force.
With respect to personal income tax collected from residents of
these Yukon first nations settlement lands, the federal
government will vacate 75% of its tax room for the Yukon first
nations governments to occupy.
The bill also ensures that the tax burden of an individual
subject to first nations taxation is the same as in surrounding
jurisdictions.
[Translation]
Bill C-25 also includes a provision which exempts from tax the
trust established by the federal, provincial and territorial
administrations to compensate hepatitis C victims.
1315
[English]
The tax treatment of demutualization is another non-budget tax
measure in the bill. As hon. members know, demutualization is a
process whereby mutual insurance companies owned by their voting
policyholders can convert to ordinary stock companies owned by
their shareholders. This allows additional capital to be raised
in the stock markets to support the business operations of
insurers.
Federal insurance legislation has already been passed to permit
large life insurers, regulated under Canadian law, to
demutualize.
The Department of Finance released draft rules on the income tax
consequences of demutualization on December 15, 1998 and has
worked closely with the demutualizing insurers since that time in
refining these rules.
The basic cash treatment for cash demutualization benefits is
that they are treated as dividends and therefore are subject to
the low rate of tax for dividends. There is no immediate tax
benefit associated with a policyholder receiving a share as a
demutualization benefit but a capital gain would be recognized
once the share is sold.
Legislation to ensure that the guaranteed income supplement of
elderly policyholders is fairly calculated after they receive
demutualization benefits was enacted by parliament earlier this
year.
The measures in Bill C-25 are not contentious. They are well
thought out and all adhere to the principles of tax fairness.
Each measure addresses an inequity, inconsistency or discrepancy
in the tax system. Each improves the operation of the tax
system. Many of these measures are the result of consultations
with the industry or clients affected, a process to which our
government is dedicated in any major policy change.
[Translation]
As hon. members can see, even if the various elements of this
bill are not interconnected, they are all aimed at improving the
situation of the Canadian taxpayers and enhancing the equity of
the tax system.
With the five year tax reduction plan set out in Budget 2000,
which brings in the most significant structural changes to be
made in the federal tax system in more than ten years, the
measures in the 1999 budget are in line with the government's
long term tax reduction strategy.
[English]
I urge my hon. colleagues to pass this bill without delay so we
can move on to budget 2000 and enable Canadians to benefit fully
and quickly from the government's five year tax reduction plan.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is April and it is
snowing outside. It is cold comfort for the hapless taxpayer, as
we just heard from the previous speaker.
Before us we have Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act,
the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999,
tendered by the Minister of Finance. This bill is representative
of how the government spends the people's money. We must
remember that fact; it is the people's money and not the
government's.
We know that the Liberals, in an overall sense, tax too much,
spend too much and then end up owing too much. It could be said
that they are just the lowly Liberals; they exist, therefore they
will spend. Because of that nature, the economy is not in great
shape, especially when we compare ourselves to the world
community.
In considering how our future is being squandered by the waste
and mismanagement of the government, we need to hold this
administration to account and to outline a real vision of hope
and responsibility of what could have been done. We have so much
potential as a country but what stands in our way is the ideology
carried by the Liberals in budget after budget. It seems Canada
is always described as having a great future as far as living
memory recalls, but when will it ever arrive?
This bill still represents an old style of governance that does
not reflect what the country needs in wise fiscal management.
However, it is somewhat in character with what the Liberals
calculate they can buy votes with and keep the national attitude
going that it is the Liberals who will dole out local favour to
those who ingratiate themselves to the party rather than
administer it as a trust for the protection and sustenance of
all.
1320
The Minister of Finance and his minions know, for example, that
HRDC spending is only marginally successful as an overall
economic benefit to the economy as compared to alternative
strategies. However, the government pursues them anyway no
matter how much it will hurt the country in the future because in
the short term politicians can make political spin and political
boasting about their accomplishments. Patronage and vote buying
may influence elections, but it is a perpetuation of the rape of
the country for the favoured few.
The electorate needs to distinguish between wise economic
governance and crude vote buying, which has now been fully
revealed in the House, and what is the character of a Liberal. It
is very hurtful behaviour to the country economically and, in a
moral sense, it is wrong.
Specifically in the bill, the amendments implement certain
measures announced in the budget of February 16, 1999. Also
included are income tax amendments to implement a measure
relating to taxation agreements with aboriginal groups, included
in a notice of ways and means motion tabled in the House of
Commons on December 2, 1998, and income tax amendments relating
to the demutualism of insurance corporations that were released
on December 15, 1998. In some ways it is a technical bill, but
it is representative of a misguided and hurtful quasi-socialist
ideology with a lot of old style political conniving thrown in.
What the bill is part of is an overly intrusive administration
that is Keynesian to a fault. Voters must understand that
Liberals cannot manage. When they influence the economy for
party interests rather than in the interests of every citizen, we
see the reason why historically our country has always come in as
an also ran, never great, never bold, full of unrealized
potential.
Fiscal decisions are measures of how a government attempts to
influence the economy. The national budget generally reflects
the economic policy and it is partly through the budget that the
government exercises its three principle methods of establishing
control: the allocative function; the stabilization function;
and, the distributive function.
To understand how we are doing as a country, we must look hard
at the world of nations in the global village market so to speak.
The comparative picture is not great. Responsibility for
Canada's measure of prosperity rests mostly with our own
governments and not outside forces. When we hear socialist talk
of globalization, it often leads to feelings of helplessness,
resentment and envy. The NDP have done fairly well with its
politics of envy. Certainly with inadequate economic attitudes,
a country can feel like flotsam in the great tide of global
economic change.
The irony in globalization is how much importance it places on
local attitudes and strategies as determinants of national
success. Never before has the maybe tired phrase “think
globally, act locally” had more meaning, especially in the realm
of macroeconomic. Canada need not be a victim of forces reputedly
beyond its control. The degree to which this country shares and
engages in the wondrous economic opportunities created by
globalization and new technology depends in good measure on what
we do at home to be effective abroad. Understanding that we are
powerful rather than weak, that we have choices to make rather
than immutable facts to accept and that we are as good as anyone
else on a level playing field is the key to our national
prosperity.
The stakes go far beyond simple measures of per capita wealth
and gross domestic product, although those matter very much.
Canada's real per capita GDP grew by only 5% in the 1990s despite
our embrace of freer trade, some tax reform and other
adjustments, for they were too timid. The real per capita income
of the Americans rose almost four times; of the Dutch, five
times; of the Norwegians, six times; and of the Irish an
astounding 18 times, almost doubling in a decade. The Irish
might now have higher incomes than Canadians.
Faster rates of growth beat the higher standards of private and
public consumption, better housing, more cultural expression,
better education, health care, environmental conditions and
leisure opportunities. The converse is also true that the
evidence is that the more socialistic or centrally controlled the
national economy is, the more impediments there are for open
markets to function, the worse off are the people both in their
household budgets and in their more polluted environment and in
their more circumscribed lives with the lack of basic human
rights.
1325
However, the rewards of a global consciousness for local
competitive conditions go deeper. They ensure that a compelling
variety of career opportunities exist for the next generation.
Creative and exciting jobs will exist in those localities that
learn to serve global markets well. Of all the things we owe to
the next generation, this is the most important: good jobs for
their own sake and economic freedom to fulfil natural potential.
However, the Liberals have not been able to create the needed
optimistic economic climate required for growth because they have
been too socialistic and too prescriptive for the average
taxpayer.
An in-depth 1999 survey of 50 leading corporations in Canada
revealed some sad realities. Forty per cent of chief executives
from Canadian and foreign-owned companies alike put the
probability that their own jobs would leave Canada within 10
years at 50/50 or higher. An exodus of chief executives or legal
head offices does not put at risk all the Canadian jobs of such
companies, but the place where a company's decision making power
resides is linked to everything from the opportunities opened to
talented Canadians to the potential for strategic alliances with
other Canadian companies and broad synergies.
Twenty years ago many Canadians worried about the presence in
Canada of foreign-owned companies with significant operational
responsibilities here. Many of those firms have since
centralized power in their home countries, leaving their Canadian
branches with externally directed world product mandates. Now
the pressing concern is whether globally successful
Canadian-owned companies will stay here or even start here. Why
would they? The Liberals tax too much, spend too much, owe too
much and they cannot manage the people's money.
We have much higher corporate and personal tax rates, more
restrictive regulations governing mergers, compensation, exchange
listings and tax deferrals. There is a brain drain from the
universities. Inflexible unions and rigid labour markets hold us
back. Boondoggle waste starves needed infrastructure investment.
Sadly, we still have a cultural hostility to economic success.
Many Canadians dismiss business community concerns, especially
after the turmoil of the 1980s, but they can be explained in
large part by mismanagement of public finances from government
rather than private sector activity. Many more changes are
required to reap the benefits and opportunities of globalization.
As the most recent federal budget showed, we have not understood
how urgent these issues are and how amenable they remain to our
own decisions. The Canadian Alliance clearly says that we could
do so much better as a country. Canada's story is one of missed
opportunity, a story of what could have been if we had a more
competent and ethical government.
For example, we have warned for the need to anticipate high
interest rates and its consequences, but the debt bomb has been
left ticking away. We should have been accomplishing more in
reducing the national debt. Every prudent householder and small
business owner knows that when times are more prosperous it is
time to put the finances in order to withstand a future downturn.
It means paying down debt to reduce interest payments. At the
same time, capacity room is created for borrowing later should it
be necessary. This applies to the country as well. If we do not
reduce debt when times are good, when will it every be
appropriate, when the economy is in recession and revenues are
falling while expenses are rising? Hardly. That again is the
Liberal record.
Canada has enjoyed almost nine years of uninterrupted moderate
economic expansion, which, among other benefits, has helped the
government to eliminate the yearly deficit. Long term economic
policy should be such that the government sets its fiscal levels
of taxation and expenditures to promote economic growth without
inflation. As the economy continues to grow, while running close
to capacity, and as the unemployment rate declines, the threat of
inflation grows.
These circumstances call for rapid debt reduction and limited,
if not zero, increases in government spending. Debt reduction
itself will restrain inflation somewhat and holding back
expenditures will dampen the damaging economic fires. The old
habit of the Liberals is to use rising government revenues to
spend for redistributive programs rather than reduce debt. It is
reasoned that there are potentially more votes when the
government writes cheques to people than relieving burden that is
not immediately evident.
This approach has two problems. First, increased expenditures
fuel inflation in a heated up economy resulting in higher
interest rates. Second, high levels of taxes that were necessary
to slay the deficit are out of line with those in other
developing countries.
High taxes act as a break on future growth as money seeks to
escape the claw of the tax man.
High taxes discourage risk taking and tend to send investment
offshore. That means no growth. Without growth there will be
less income to redistribute and fewer resources to put medicare
or other social programs on a stable, sustainable footing and be
more shielded from the ups and downs of the world economy.
1330
Taxes can be significantly and permanently reduced only if the
interest on the national debt can be reduced. Our permanent
outstanding debt is more than $570 billion. It costs more than
$40 billion per year just to pay the interest. This is the
single largest program of government. For each $1 billion of debt
reduction, interest payments would decline by at least $60
million, funds that could be either spent on programs or applied
to tax reductions.
The biggest part of the so-called $58 billion in tax reductions
announced in the recent federal budget is scheduled to take place
three, four and five years from now, long after the mandate of
the current government runs out. It is an insincere ploy to make
that kind of future commitment when a future government cannot be
held to them. It was a wrong choice.
If debt were reduced more aggressively now, the government would
gain future room to manoeuvre in two ways. First, the current
interest payments would decline and second, a return to deficits
would be less a possibility.
Another way of looking at things is the present surplus is
hurtful high taxation and the money could be more productively
left in the hands of the consumer and entrepreneur, rather than
languish in the hands of a government bureaucrat.
Fortunately the debt to GDP ratio is gradually declining. The
main reason is moderate growth of the economy and not a decline
in the debt through wise management. The debt ratio could decline
even faster if only the government devoted more appropriate
effort toward planned debt reduction rather than increased
program spending. Among other things, increased spending will
further complicate the workings of monetary policy and will
probably result in yet even more pressure for higher interest
rates. As interest rates rise, so will the cost of servicing the
debt. It is a vicious cycle which the Liberals have ignored
because they chose questionable spending schemes instead of tax
relief, internal reallocation and debt reduction.
The way things stand, when a downturn occurs, and it surely will
come soon enough, government revenues will decline, interest
payments will remain at choking levels and expenditures on
employment insurance and welfare will increase. We could easily
be right back in the deficit spiral that nearly destroyed the
country and the few revenue reductions in the recent budget may
never occur. All the sacrifices of the past few years will have
been for naught.
We are not out of the woods. Our national balance sheet is far
from strong. Until we pay down a good part of the national debt
for past unwise spending, we will still be at serious risk.
Without real debt reduction, the promised tax adjustments may
just disappear.
We cannot put groceries on the table with headlines and budget
speeches. We cannot put more money on people's kitchen tables
with Liberal Party economics. Personal relief is what Canadians
really want and need. They want more money left in their hands
for economic freedom. They want more groceries. They might even
want to buy a pair of jeans, but they will not be able to do that
with this bill because it just does not leave them nearly enough
money.
Instead of giving Canadians a fake break, we should give them a
real tax break. The Liberals unreasonably disturb the market,
confiscate too much from the taxpayer and then poorly and
inefficiently deliver high priced services.
The preferred choice is solution 17 of the Canadian Alliance.
Our proposal will dramatically lower taxes for all Canadians and
ensure that middle class Canadians whom this government is
targeting end up with more real disposable income in their
pockets and not just a headline and a speech which does them
nothing.
The finance minister said in his 1995 budget speech that
subsidies to business impede growth. All economists know that
this is true in the Canadian context, however the finance
minister continues to rubber stamp all kinds of subsidies to
business. The minister has previously admitted that government
cannot pick winners, but losers can pick governments. Truer
words were never spoken.
There have been many losers who have not only picked the pockets
of this government, but have also taken resources from the
average taxpayer. Yet the finance minister rubber stamps more of
these spending schemes. They go to the human resources minister,
the Indian affairs minister, the industry minister and the
Canadian heritage minister.
Too often they are used for things which appear to be political
slush, or things which are of such low priority that they are
seen by the average person as complete rip-offs. In some cases
they go to some of the wealthiest companies in the world, and too
often to boards of directors associated with the Liberal Party
that is close to their political fundraising.
1335
In my theme of the character of Liberal style spending and
governance, I want to touch briefly upon what has been going on
in the Department of Human Resources Development.
Back in January we brought to light an audit which revealed all
kinds of mismanagement and a callous attitude toward the
hard-earned money taken from Canadians. We found there was little
or no monitoring of files on over $1 billion worth of grants and
subsidies. There were many cases where applications were not
even submitted but grant money was given to people. We found all
kinds of unbelievable things especially in Liberal ridings.
The sad thing is that instead of following accepted standards of
professional public administration, program designs were flawed
and unreasonably open to political interference in what should
have been business standards and program delivery decisions
rather than questionable political favours. When they were found
out, a six point fix-up plan was hatched afterward with a promise
to do better. The plan is an unbelievably simple recitation of
the most basic procedures that ordinarily should be followed in
any federal program.
The conclusion from all of this is irrefutable and absolutely
conclusive. The Liberals cannot manage. The more we have dug,
the worse it gets. The government hangs onto every bit of
information as long it can, running a game of confusion all
geared to hide the true nature of the Liberal style of the money
game.
The Indian affairs minister has all kinds of disasters going on
in his area and the police have been called in to conduct
investigations in the Prime Minister's riding. This has happened
at a time when the finance minister has brought down a budget
that has more of the same. There is even more money in the
budget going to the human resources minister. It is almost like
a dare to stick it to the taxpayer one more time. It is
unbelievable after the record of poor program design, general
mismanagement and even outright political meddling.
The ministerial accountability rule dictates that at least
several ministers should resign in view of this. They are
responsible for the planning, approval and ultimate delivery of
those programs. There is no question that they should resign.
The government spends about $13.5 billion a year on grants and
contributions. The entire time the government was cutting the
heart out of health care, it maintained very questionable
spending for grants and contributions.
The Liberals' desire to spend for their friends and to support
their outmoded prime the pump economic strategy kept them funding
these pet projects. They made a cruel heartless choice. They
cut hospital beds across the country so that they could fund
hotel beds in Shawinigan. That is what it appears to be.
Repeat that word picture a thousand times across the country.
The Liberals call these schemes job creation. When challenged
about its claim of 30,000 jobs, the government cannot provide any
quality evidence that it produced significant program goals.
Many of the companies just got the money and then went bankrupt.
For many there were no records, but for the Liberals it was only
$1 billion so who needs to keep records? Many of these programs
likely hurt more than they helped.
We must also remember that this comes on top of massive tax
increases which the government has brought forward over the six
and a half years it has been in power. Canadians know that at
the end of the day they will be paying more in taxes than they
did when the Liberals took power. We would never know that from
reading a headline the other day, “$58 billion in tax relief”.
The real impact is that Canadians will still be paying a lot more
in taxes than when the government came to power, about $700 per
family.
We can congratulate the government for pulling the wool over the
people's eyes, including a lot of the fawning, unquestioning
media, but the truth is that Canadians will still be paying taxes
that are far too high even after the implementation of this bill.
Canadians will see the effect on their pay stubs as the year
progresses, as the changes in this bill and others are
implemented.
In addressing budget 2000, I am sure all members are conscious
that millions of Canadians have hopes and dreams for themselves
and their children that can be affected by the spending and
taxation policies and budgetary promises of the federal
government. For example, if the federal government wastes
taxpayer dollars through irresponsible spending, then it is
Canadians who will suffer. They are the ones who then have fewer
dollars available to fund services such as health care which
Canadians value highly.
If the federal government taxes Canadians too heavily, it is the
take home pay and the bank accounts of individuals, families and
employers that are savaged. It is Canadian jobs and economic
opportunities that are smothered, or exported to more friendly
economic climates.
If the Minister of Finance makes promises and commitments in his
budget which are then broken, if the truths asserted in the
budget turn out to be half-truths, then it is the faith of
Canadians and the integrity of the government itself which are
eroded.
1340
Indeed that is where we are at, for fewer voters bother to
exercise their hard won right to vote at the ballot box. In each
election the percentage of turnout is going down as people get
fed up and disengage from the political life of our country. That
is what the Canadian Alliance can mend and change, putting real
power and democratic influence into the hands of the electorate.
It is clear from the last budget that the highest priority of
the Liberal government is not tax relief but increased spending
of taxpayers' dollars. The budget reveals that the government
will be spending more this year than provided for in last year's
estimates. In other words, the promises in last year's budget to
limit spending for this year will once again be broken. The
chronic tendency of the government to break promises to limit
spending has often been criticized by the auditor general. One
expert said:
While responding to health care needs and refurbishing the RCMP
and military spending clearly reflect the priorities of
Canadians, taxpayers should be concerned about the fact that the
government is using the surplus of over taxation to fund these
priorities. Instead of reallocating from existing budget
envelopes by ending corporate welfare, winding down regional
development schemes and ending job creation boondoggles, the feds
have opted to use the surplus of over taxation revenues to fund
new initiatives. The finance minister and his colleagues have
ignored the obvious lessons arising from the HRDC. This puts a
blemish on this taxpayer friendly budget.
Until the government embarks on a legislated line item plan of
annual debt reduction, we will continue to lose on average $114
million a day to institutional bondholders. Reducing debt today
cuts tomorrow's taxes.
After years of deep cuts in the wrong places, the Liberals began
restoring the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST.
However by 2002 federal spending on health care will only reach
1995 levels. The CHST allocation hardly revitalizes the system.
What it does not do is take into account an increasingly older
population, expensive advances in technology and advances in
capabilities.
The announced $2.5 billion is spread over four years and the
provinces are free to spend it on universities and colleges as
they see fit. This freedom may be good, but the overall picture
and economic environment set by the federal level is
insufficient. The budget increase will not fix the crisis in
acute care, update old technology or heal the shortage of medical
and nursing professionals, let alone build new programs.
The Canadian dollar falls to 63.5 cents U.S. and the Prime
Minister's response is “No problem”. Canada's best trained
people leave for the United States and he says “What brain
drain?” The human resources department is found to have
mismanaged at least $1 billion in jobs funds and according to the
auditor general untold billions of dollars have been wasted. The
Prime Minister calls it a minor administrative problem.
Given that history, imagine my smile when the recent Liberal
Party convention highlighted the great danger in being next to
the world's most dynamic economy. A danger. Anti-Americanism has
always proven to be a valuable tool when it is time to rally the
troops of the NDP or the Liberals to justify more intrusion of
government into markets.
Given that virtually every economist has noted that our growth
in the past six years has been a result of our record trade
surpluses with the U.S.A., cabinet should be a little embarrassed
by focusing on our proximity to the U.S.A. as a big problem.
There is little doubt that our future prosperity is based on the
American economy remaining strong. Canada is riding the American
economic wagon, yet we are complaining about the driver.
In an effort to excuse more government regulation and
intervention, focusing on preventing American takeovers of
Canadian companies in certain sectors might be worthy of some
discussion, but it misses the bigger problems. While too many
members of the media play into the fearmongering politicians who
decry American ownership in Canada, a real threat to our economy
is the huge amount of Canadian money leaving the country. In
1998 a total of $17 billion came into Canada from the United
States while $54 billion left.
I do not know why it is so hard for some people to understand
that when money leaves it takes jobs and tax revenues with it.
When money comes in, most of the jobs stay here and only perhaps
some of the profits leave the country after a lot of taxes have
been paid.
In the corporate world as much as 70% of all taxes collected are
unrelated to income, so the vast majority of tax revenue
generated from businesses stays here. The government does not
acknowledge the negative economic impact of capital outflow, but
the amount of money leaving the country may be the biggest
economic problem we face because of the poor economic climate the
Liberals have created.
1345
In the past 10 years $135 billion more left the country than
came in. If the Liberals want to focus on just one economic
problem, this would be a good place to start, and the solution
would not be more government intervention, as that would be
identified as a major cause of the problem.
There has been a surplus in the last few years despite poor
priority allocation, as it has been done with high levels of
taxation, which has been an unnecessary drag on economic growth.
The budget should be balanced every year, save for times of
national emergency. However, it should be balanced at a lower
level, where there is not a wasteful confiscation of citizens'
labour and production, for at some point taxation even becomes a
moral issue of basic economic freedom. The basic economic
freedom of Canadians is too tightly held by the government. An
excess surplus year after year can also be seen as evidence of
burdensome, hurtful taxation.
Concerning taxation, the net impact of the last five Liberal
budgets has been to raise Canada's tax bill some $6 billion in
1999-2000 above what Canadians would have paid under the 1993 tax
regime.
If Canada needs to reduce taxes, what about the bill before us
today? At first glance the bill tries to pass itself off as
legislation to bring about tax relief to Canadians. A closer
look reveals that for each token tax relief measure there is an
accompanying tax grab through another initiative. Specifically,
clauses 3, 6 and 8 are revenue generating amendments. Clause 12
enhances incentives for labour sponsored venture capital
corporations, which are known to distort the market with respect
to sound investments. The other changes in the bill are
primarily of a housekeeping nature and include items such as RRSP
proceeds on death, demutualization of insurance companies and the
hepatitis C trust fund.
In contrast, the Canadian Alliance single rate tax plan,
solution 17, would deliver significant, deep, across the board
tax relief. The basic personal exemption would be increased to
$10,000 and it would also introduce a $3,000 per child standard
deduction. Once implemented the measures would remove 1.9
million low income taxpayers from the tax rolls as well as
increase disposable income and financial freedom for all
taxpayers.
Under our plan taxpayers would pay a maximum federal rate of
17%. The 5% surtax would be eliminated and capital gains would
be reduced. Our overall tax relief proposals would improve
incentives to work, encourage investment and business risk-taking
entrepreneurship and help stem the costly brain drain.
We still have the overwhelming crushing tax burden faced by
Canadian taxpayers and businesses. We still have one of the
highest personal income tax rates in the G-7. The token measures
outlined in Bill C-25 do nothing to reduce that burden. Once
again the government masquerades as a proponent of tax relief
while simultaneously hiking taxes elsewhere.
However, solution 17, our single rate tax plan, offers real,
comprehensive tax relief compared to the tinkering the government
has proposed in the bill. Try as it may the government will
attempt to portray these legislative measures as a symbol of its
ongoing commitment to generous tax relief, but it is our duty to
expose the plan for what it really is: tinkering, tokenism,
empty of the priorities this country needs.
At the end of January we released the details of solution 17,
our 17% single rate tax. Solution 17 is designed to deliver
significant tax relief to all taxpayers and it would take 1.9
million low income Canadians completely off the tax rolls.
Here is why we believe this is the right time for major tax
reform in Canada and why we believe a single rate plan would be
the best vehicle for delivering tax fairness and tax relief to
all Canadians. Right now Canada is in a tax crisis. We are
paying too much, losing too many people and businesses to the
United States, discriminating against families who want to care
for their children, creating disincentives for people to work for
themselves, to get out of the welfare trap, and penalizing people
who want to save and invest for their own retirement and
security.
The federal Liberals argue that Canada's fiscal dividend should
be used to increase the size of government. Yet the recent OECD
analysis of member countries shows that only Denmark, Norway,
Sweden and Iceland spend more per capita on government spending
than we do in Canada. With our high tax load and the finance
minister predicting surpluses approaching $100 billion over the
next five years, the timing could not be better for significant
across the board tax relief.
1350
Not only is the government taking too much from us in taxes, it
is taking it in the wrong way. Over the next few years as we
look at growing surpluses we will have a golden opportunity not
only to reduce the actual tax load aggressively and quickly, but
to reform the tax system to reduce or at least minimize the harm
that the system imposes on Canadians' lives.
Canada's current income tax system is structured around three
main tax brackets and a surtax. What is wrong with this? The
severity of the jump in marginal rates at low income levels
exacts a heavy toll on all our taxpayers and, ultimately, the
economy. The highest marginal rate, about 50%, kicks in at
roughly $60,000, compared to $430,000 in the United States. The
U.S. rate is about 39.6%, depending on the state.
There is a massive disincentive to work and save and invest.
This discriminates also between single and dual income families.
It leads to accounting gymnastics. Our plan would bring a single
rate tax system, augmented by significantly increased personal
and spousal deductions and a restored deduction for dependent
children. Every Canadian would see lower taxes under this plan.
It would maintain all existing deductions and credits, with three
significant exceptions. The personal and spousal exemption would
be increased and equalized, and we would introduce a standard
$3,000 children's deduction to acknowledge the family expense of
raising children.
In our plan 1.9 million low income Canadians would be completely
taken off the tax rolls. The impact of any single marginal tax
rate would then depend on the base exemptions and the rate
selected. If we combined the single tax rate with lower taxes
for all and greatly enhanced personal exemptions to assist those
at the lowest income range, everyone would benefit. That is what
would be achieved under our single rate plan.
Under our single marginal rate not only would those individuals
and families with a greater ability to pay now pay a greater
absolute amount, they would also pay at a greater proportion of
income than those at the lower end. A single rate system of
taxation would do something else. It would remove the massive
disincentive to work, to save and to invest, which is currently
the case in Canada. It would end the penalty for hard work and
success.
Our current multiple rate system penalizes extra work. Why be
more productive or take an extra contract only to have Ottawa
take an even higher percentage of the fruits of our labour? Why
take investment risks, saving for the future, when Revenue Canada
will get a bigger chunk of our effort? This marginal tax penalty
would be removed under a single rate system.
A single rate tax would end the existing discrimination between
single and dual income families. Right now families who choose
to have one parent stay at home are taxed at a higher marginal
tax rate. They are penalized by the tax system if they choose to
stay home with their children. A single rate system would remove
this discrimination and, along with a significant per child
deduction, would lower the overall tax burden for families. The
Canadian Alliance is the real family friendly party.
Not only would our single tax rate bring income levels more in
line with our largest trading partner, it would significantly
lower capital gains taxes. This would discourage the brain drain
in key sectors of our economy and encourage new businesses and
the venture capital formation necessary to attract the well
paying jobs that build wealth and ultimately raise the standard
of living for all Canadians.
The benefits of a single rate are obvious. A single low
marginal rate would eliminate the discrimination between families
and would deliver tax relief for everyone. It would eliminate
the disincentive to succeed. It would increase take home pay.
It would encourage more high tech firms to set up shop in Canada,
and it would make all of us more internationally competitive in
the new global economy.
It is a plan that would promote growth and wealth creation by
making all taxes simpler, flatter and lower. It is a plan for
today and a tax plan for Canada's future, and it is all possible
using the same economic assumptions and basic numbers of the
Minister of Finance.
In conclusion, if we can deliver such an astounding package
compared to the Liberals, the basic question must be asked: What
are the Liberals doing with the money? They are wasting it and
mismanaging it.
This bill does nothing to change the conclusion of the argument
that I have made today, and that is that the Liberals cannot
manage.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I see the hon. member has finished his speech.
With your permission, I am going to recognize the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and he will have the floor when we resume
debate after Oral Question Period. This will allow us to get in
a few more Statements by Members in the extra minutes.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1355
[Translation]
FRENCH-SPEAKING MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health announced on Tuesday the
creation of the Consultative Committee for French-Speaking
Minority Communities.
Under section 41 of the Official Languages Act, the Government
of Canada has an obligation to enhance the vitality of the English
and French linguistic minority in Canada. The creation
of this committee is an important step, honouring the global
commitment made in this regard.
One of the priorities of the minority official language
communities is access to health care services. There is no
doubt that this committee will be attentive to the comments of
these communities.
It will play a major role in bringing together the
representatives of the French-speaking minority communities,
Health Canada, Canadian Heritage and the provinces.
Dr. Hubert Gauthier, the head of the St. Boniface general
hospital, will co-chair the committee with Marie Fortier, the
associate deputy minister at Health Canada.
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER BREAKFAST
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on April 28, 1999 the entire country was shocked to
learn of a shooting in a school in Taber, Alberta, a small town
in my riding. The shooting took the life of a 17 year old young
man by the name of Jason Lang.
The thought of losing a child is every parent's worst nightmare,
but it was all too real for Reverend Dale Lang and his wife
Diane. Who could have blamed them if they had become angry or
bitter?
But the Langs are people of extraordinary faith. This morning
Reverend Lang addressed hundreds of parliamentarians, diplomats,
dignitaries and members of the public at the annual national
parliamentary prayer breakfast where he delivered a truly
inspiring message of forgiveness.
Where does the strength and healing come from which allow them
to forgive the person who killed their son? Reverend Lang knows
that it comes from God; a humbling reminder, colleagues, that
there is an authority greater than the supreme court and the
Parliament of Canada.
* * *
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING CANADA INC.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. announced plans to build
the award winning Lexus RX300 sports utility vehicle beginning in
2003 at its industry leading plant in my riding of Cambridge.
This good news translates into new investment of $650 million,
the creation of 300 new jobs in Cambridge, an increase in the
plant's capacity from 200,000 to 220,000 vehicles per year, and a
spinoff expansion of eight new Lexus dealerships throughout
Canada.
Toyota Canada president Yoshio Nakatani stated: “The
Cambridge-built Corolla is the best selling Corolla in Canada,
and the RX300 is the best selling Lexus. Now they will both be
stamped `Made in Canada'.”
Prior to this announcement, Toyota created 2,800 jobs in
Cambridge and invested over $2 billion in the facility which
industry analysts rated as the most productive auto assembly
plant.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been speaking out about the high cost of gasoline in
Canada and Quebec since October 1999. Six months later, a group
of Bloc Quebecois members has decided to tour the province
starting only on April 3. I can certainly understand their
action, especially after the budgets of the federal and Quebec
government were presented.
Since October 1999, these Bloc Quebecois members have had the
opportunity, as members of an opposition party, to use an
opposition day to debate the cost of gasoline in Canada and
Quebec.
Why does the Bloc Quebecois not want this opposition day, a day
for Canadian and Quebec consumers?
* * *
[English]
TRIPLE “A” BASKETBALL
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Triple “A” high school basketball
championships were held last month and schools from my riding of
Dewdney—Alouette certainly did us proud.
On the senior girl's side, the Heritage Park Highlanders from my
hometown of Mission fought through the tough competition and came
away with the championship after beating the Port Moody Blues in
the final. This was the Highlanders second consecutive finals
appearance and their first ever provincial championship.
On the senior boy's side, the Pitt Meadows Marauders made it a
Dewdney—Alouette finals sweep with a dramatic come-from-behind
overtime victory over the Terry Fox Ravens.
The underdog Marauders showed tenacity and grit as they carried
on the winning tradition of their school which has produced many
champions, including the late Greg Moore of Indy cart racing and
Brendan Morrison of the Vancouver Canucks.
1400
I congratulate the players, coaches and parents of the Heritage
Park Highlanders and the Pitt Meadows Marauders for their
impressive victories at the B.C. championships. They prove that
Dewdney—Alouette is the home of champions once again.
* * *
YOUTH MANIFESTO
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, “Thank
you from the whole of my heart for making this dream come true.
You have made hearts beat passionately to reunite in a country
called Canada under the protective wing of a maple leaf”. So
spoke Ralitza Houbanova from Bulgaria who, along with 350 youths
from all over the world, attended the first ever World Parliament
of Children in Paris last October. During that parliament the
final draft of the youth manifesto for the 21st century was
adopted and will be communicated to the United Nations this year.
Thanks to a grant from Canadian Heritage, the forum for young
Canadians has brought 22 students and teachers from 11 countries
to Canada to join the two Canadian students who represented
Canada.
The world delegation of students will present the youth
manifesto for the 21st century in the Senate chamber on Monday
morning, hosted by the speakers of the Senate and the House, the
Deputy Prime Minister and the UNESCO representative for Canada.
I encourage all to attend.
* * *
STEPHEN LEACOCK
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the great progenitor of Canadian humour and comedy,
Stephen Leacock, is back to promote literacy, literature and
laughter in his first national tour in more than half a century.
Incanpopcult is an independent performing arts company located
in my riding that has joined VIA Rail and McLelland & Stewart to
assist Professor Leacock in his whirlwind tour to cheer up
Canada.
Neil Ross portrays Stephen Leacock and Aaron Duncan is Stevie,
Jr., supporting his famous father in a breathtaking array of
roles and multi-instrumental displays of musical virtuosity. A
significant number of performances across the country are
fundraisers for local and regional chapters of the Ontario
Literacy Coalition and its provincial counterparts.
I invite all colleagues in the House to support their local
literacy foundation by attending Stephen Leacock's whirlwind
campaign when the train pulls into the towns and cities in their
ridings and enjoying an evening of sketches and monologues that
defined our nation.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to paraphrase from a letter I received from
the guards at the Edmonton maximum institution to the
commissioner of Correctional Service Canada:
The members of...Local 30168 instructed the Executive to request
your immediate resignation from your position as the Commissioner
of Corrections Canada. This request is in response to your
actions which have brought CSC's reputation into disrepute and
have undermined the public's confidence in the ability of CSC to
properly protect them.
We believe that you have misused your authority to spend
taxpayer money, that you have been unable to meet the standards
you have set for correctional officers and you have refused or
have been unable to effectively address the concerns of the
frontline staff.
Correctional officers who participate in competitions are
required to take a values and ethics test. The Members of this
local believe if you were given this same test you wouldn't have
a chance at passing.
My lesson today for the solicitor general is simple. If one
wants to know what is going on, sometimes one has to talk to the
custodian, not to the CEO. The message is loud and clear coming
from every direction that Ole has got to go.
* * *
FIREFIGHTERS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, firefighters are twice as likely to suffer fatalities on
the job than the average Canadian worker. The rate of
occupational related diseases for firefighters is among the
highest.
For all these reasons firefighters cannot fully enjoy the Canada
pension plan. They have been requesting for years that they be
allowed to qualify without penalty for reduced benefits in the
CPP at the age of 55 and for full benefits at age 60, rather than
the current ages of 60 and 65.
Moreover, firefighters would like to see the government commit
to the following: (a) increasing the maximum pension accrual rate
from 2% to 2.33%, (b) improving aircraft rescue and firefighting
standards at Canada's airports, (c) creating an agency with the
mandate to investigate hazardous work sites and enforce workplace
safety rules, and (d) creating a federally funded public safety
officer compensation fund for the survivors of public safety
officers killed in the line of duty.
I ask the government once again to do justice to these brave
people who put their lives on the line and to heed their
requests, which I think are perfectly reasonable and supported in
the main by the commons finance committee. In particular, I am
talking about the CPP section of their request.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has
a long tradition of solidarity and openness. We cherish these
values. This is why, in budget 2000, the government included an
important measure affecting all new refugees.
1405
Effective February 28, the landing fee has been eliminated for
refugees. That fee, which was introduced in 1995, was designed to
have those who benefit from social programs shoulder a share of
the costs. This $975 fee had to be paid by all immigrants and
refugees aged 19 and over.
[English]
The government is aware that refugees arriving in Canada have
limited funds and face many obstacles, so it has decided that it
is time to exempt refugees from the landing fee. I would like to
congratulate the government.
This exemption will certainly alleviate their financial
situation and help them in rebuilding their lives in Canada. The
Liberal government listens to all people and promotes access to
enrich our Canadian diverse culture.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
gasoline prices recently shot to a staggering new high in my
riding of Jonquière.
Between January 1999 and January 2000, the average price for
diesel fuel increased by 40%, while the price of gasoline rose
from 54.4 cents to 75.6 cents a litre between June 1999 and April
2000.
Meanwhile, the federal government is acting like a hypocrite. If
we calculate the revenues from the federal excise tax, the GST
and the taxes paid by oil companies, we soon realize that the
federal government has a margin of over $6 billion.
Because the government seems to be in no hurry to act on this
issue, the public has decided to try to shake the government out
of its lethargy. Since Monday, the residents of the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region have been boycotting Petro-Canada.
If the Minister of Finance wants to end that boycott, he will
have to take steps to lower the price of gasoline. With the
fiscal flexibility he has, the minister can lift the 10 cent
federal excise tax until gasoline prices get back to normal.
The minister must stop letting the provinces take the blame, he
must assume his responsibilities—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Egmont.
* * *
[English]
AIR CANADA
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the monopoly
that exists in airline travel in eastern Canada has resulted in
Air Canada becoming an arrogant, overbearing, corporate bully
with little or no understanding of customer service or regional
needs.
What used to be a one and one-half hour flight from
Charlottetown to Ottawa when I was first elected in 1988 can now
be an overnight trip. A flat tire in Halifax at 4.30 in the
afternoon can mean an overnight stay in Montreal because Air
Canada dropped its connection to Ottawa. Flights are cancelled
without warning and customers are expected to be happy.
I used to feel slighted as a customer if all I got was a
sandwich or a bag of nuts to eat on a suppertime flight, but now
I am more than happy if I can get a seat.
A good transportation system is vital to a region's economy. It
is inevitable that the economic advances made by P.E.I. over the
past 10 years in tourism and business diversification will be
undone by the present airline monopoly which occurred after the
bankruptcy of Canadian Airlines and the reduction of Air Canada
seats when it took over Canadian's assets.
We need to regulate this company or, even better, we need
competition in eastern Canada in the airline industry.
* * *
MUHARAN
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is a very special day of celebration for our
Muslim community in Canada and elsewhere. It is the commencement
of the first day of Muharan, which is the first month of the
Hijra calendar in the Islamic religion.
Muharan marks the new year for approximately 1.2 billion Muslims
throughout the world and in Canada where followers of Islam are
estimated to be about 350,000. Canadians of the Islamic faith
contribute to Canada as citizens in all our provinces. Whether
they are Canadian by birth or as new citizens, they manifest
their allegiance to Canada and follow the spiritual guidance of
the Holy Koran.
On behalf of all of us in the House of Commons I extend best
wishes to all constituents and friends in the Muslim community.
Sana Mubarak and Nawroz Mubarak.
* * *
TARTAN DAY
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
Canadians of Scottish descent are celebrating Tartan Day. Tartan
Day is the anniversary of the signing of the Scottish Declaration
of Independence, the Declaration of Arbroath, in the year 1320.
Since that time this date has held immeasurable historical
importance and significance to Scots the world over.
The contribution of Scottish immigrants to the history and
evolution of North America in general and to Canada specifically
has been and continues to be both massive and proud. As a
result, numerous provincial legislatures have passed resolutions
proclaiming April 6 to be recognized as Tartan Day, as did the
province of Ontario in 1991.
It gives me great pleasure on behalf of the St. Andrew's Society
of Saint John, New Brunswick, to wish all Scottish Canadians a
very joyous Tartan Day.
* * *
EDITORIAL CARTOONISTS
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, editorial cartoonist show politicians in a most humorous
fashion. Every morning they deliver an editorial comment that
often rings truer than any essay and often is more jabbing than
any given editorial.
1410
As politicians we have a deep affection for these cutting
editorialists. Canada's editorial cartoonists are among the best
in the world. There is hardly an office on the Hill that does
not have a framed editorial cartoon proudly hung on one of its
walls.
[Translation]
As a cartoonist in my spare time and a former teacher of visual
arts, I am honoured to welcome the Canadian Association of
Editorial Cartoonists. Their charity auction “Cocktails and
Cartoons” will take place this evening in Room 200 of the West
Block.
[English]
I am sure that all my colleagues in the House salute Canada's
cartoonists for their community support and for the amusement
they bring us.
[Translation]
We hope that you will continue to inject a little humour into
the national political scene.
* * *
BILL C-20
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since yesterday, ten Bloc Quebecois members have been
criss-crossing Canada with a letter to MPPs from the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois.
They want to bring home to Canada's elected representatives Bill
C-20's threat to democracy, specifically the hijacking of the
prerogatives of legislative assemblies and the double standard
that the federal government wants to apply to the votes cast by
Quebecers.
In his letter, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois points out that,
with Bill C-20, the federal government is granting itself the
power to judge the validity of decisions taken democratically by
elected representatives of legislative assemblies. By calling
into question the 50% plus one rule, it is contradicting its own
foreign policy, under which it recognized the results of the
referendum in East Timor.
Bloc Quebecois members will be reminding provincial
representatives that Bill C-20 provides no solution at all to the
Quebec question and that, for there to be any resolution, Canada
will have to admit that there is a Quebec people and that it is
entitled, if it wishes, to have its own country.
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER BREAKFAST
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the keynote speaker at the annual parliamentary
prayer breakfast gave us a dramatic definition of forgiveness.
Pastor Dale Lang and his wife Diane said goodbye to their son
Jason a year ago when he was shot in the tragic high school
shooting in Taber.
This morning Pastor Lang reminded us that we live in a
self-centred, selfish, impatient society. We have denigrated and
diminished the value of being a human and the value of human life
and have glorified violence.
Thousands carry pain and rejection, loneliness and hurt, but he
also told us that we can be healed if we practise forgiveness. He
shared his deep gut wrenching pain at the death of his son, but
he also shared how God gave them the strength and grace to
forgive the troubled young man who caused that death.
God bless Dale and Diane as they bring this powerful gift of
forgiveness to our nation's young people and to all of us.
Perhaps we should all pray the words of the song “let there be
peace on earth, and let it begin with me”.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the new immigration and refugee bill has just been tabled and
many of the recommendations made by the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada are included, but there are some key points not
in the bill, points recommended by me and the committee.
The first is photos and fingerprints on first contact with
refugee claimants. Many of our witnesses strongly suggested this
as a real means of control. The second is a safe third country.
It is mentioned in the bill but that is all. This has been in
law since 1988, but the government has not taken steps to
negotiate the necessary agreements and the bill has no teeth to
make it do it.
Appointments to the IRB are still political. This is a job that
requires a very special expertise, not a political connection.
Unfortunately this issue is not addressed in the bill. I hope
the committee will have the backing of all parties to make proper
amendments to the bill.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a document in my hand that shows that five months
ago the ethics counsellor was concluding his investigation of the
finance minister's potential conflict of interest in the tainted
blood scandal. The ethics counsellor answers to only one person,
the Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why after five months we are
still waiting for a report from the ethics counsellor?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this matter is in the hands of the ethics counsellor. It
is up to him to say when he has finished his report. The Prime
Minister has said that when he receives the report he will make
it public.
I also understand that today a spokesman for the ethics
counsellor said that there has been no political interference in
the work of the ethics counsellor in looking into the matter in
question.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, is it not interesting that yesterday, when we asked
questions about this, the government forgot to mention that this
report was concluded five months ago.
According to a letter from the ethics counsellor dated November
8, 1999, it says “This will now allow my office to conclude our
investigation of the allegations of conflict made against the
finance minister who was a member of the board of the Canada
Development Corporation during that period”.
If they do not have anything to hide, why in the world have we
not seen the report yet?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to the best information I have, the hon.
member is not correct. The report has not been done for the
period he mentioned. The Prime Minister has not received the
report. I can only conclude that the ethics counsellor has not
concluded his work. When he does, he will give the report to the
Prime Minister who has said that he will make it public.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister is
sitting there taking advice from the finance minister on this.
I will read from a letter that was written by Howard Wilson, the
ethics counsellor. In the letter he said that the report was
winding down and would be concluded on November 8. That was a
long time ago.
If the Deputy Prime Minister is so sure that this report has not
been concluded, then why in the world is he saying that there was
no conflict and that there was no involvement from the Prime
Minister's office? Why have we not seen that report? Why are we
not hearing that—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have not seen the document the hon. member has been
holding in his hand. I would like to see it, study it and see if
he is quoting accurately from it. I would like to see if he is
quoting from it in context. I think we have learned by now that
a lot of what the hon. member says in the House has to be treated
with a great deal of skepticism.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, here is another document, just to show the seriousness
of this issue. It is an interoffice memo from Connaught
Laboratories, the subsidiary of CDC. The Minister of Finance was
on the board of directors at that time. The memo is dated 1983.
It says “In view that Connaught's blood products are not yet
registered in most countries, nor do we have heat-treated
products, it is essential that we capitalize on every inquiry
that we may receive”.
In other words, Connaught Laboratories was trying to sell a
product, which would not be allowed in the United States or
Canada, abroad. This was during the time the Minister of Finance
was on the board of directors of the CDC.
Will the Prime Minister be able to assure us that these kinds of
memos from Connaught Laboratories are part of this—
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the ethics counsellor will
be releasing his report in the very near future. I have asked,
and I understand that all pertinent documents will be made
available as part of that report.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister was on the board of directors of
CDC because of his international expertise. This memo is
entitled “International Sales of Factor H” which is the blood
product used by haemophiliacs.
The memo says “For this reason, we need your urgent
confirmation of quantities which will be available for export as
of September 27 of 400,000 units for Iran and another for
Spain”. In other words, Connaught Laboratories sold products in
1983 that it knew full well were tainted blood products.
Did the Minister of Finance know about this when he was on the
board of directors—
The Speaker: The question as stated is out of order.
* * *
1420
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health has announced that he is prepared to move on
a pharmacare plan.
I assume that the announcement that he is prepared to move on
pharmacare means he has held discussions with the Quebec
Minister of Health Marois.
Can the minister give us a progress report on the discussions he
has had with Mrs. Marois?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far
as pharmacare, and the entire area of health is concerned, I
must begin by emphasizing our intention to respect the
jurisdiction of the provincial governments. The provision of
health services is, naturally, a provincial responsibility.
At the same time, we have a constructive role to play, under the
Canada Health Act, in supporting the provinces' efforts to
develop innovative approaches.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
was not the point of my question. If I understand correctly,
the minister side-stepped the question because he did not hold
any discussions with Mrs. Marois.
I am rather surprised that he says he is prepared to move on
pharmacare when six provinces have such plans.
How can the minister tell us that he plans to move on
pharmacare, wishes to collaborate on it, is prepared to set up
such a plan, when he has not even deigned to hold discussions
with the Quebec Minister of Health? Is this the minister's idea
of an enlightened partnership?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): A few days ago in
Markham, Ontario, I tried to raise a wide range of important
matters relating to health, including pharmacare.
Unfortunately, the provinces—including Quebec's Mrs.
Marois—refused. They only wanted to talk money.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an area as
serious as pharmacare, if his intent is noble, as he says it is,
if he wants to provide a new service to Canadians, would the
Minister of Health not be well advised to proceed as his status
and position dictate?
That means consulting those responsible and then telling us
whether he will proceed, since he will be ready to do so. Is he
not doing it backwards by assuming the right to do it himself
without consulting others?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
totally agree with the hon. member. We must consult, we must
work together, that is clear. I am prepared, starting tomorrow,
to meet my counterparts to discuss the matter.
A few days ago, in Markham, I suggested that we spend time on
such a discussion, but that was rejected. I hope I will have
the opportunity in the coming weeks to speak with Mrs. Marois
and the other ministers of health in Canada on this important
matter.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister agrees with me, I would like to know whether he agrees
with the second part of my question. It is my clear impression
that he must respect the jurisdictions of the provinces and
therefore provide for complete opting out with full
compensation.
Does the minister intend, out of respect for the provinces, and
respecting their jurisdictions and existing plans, to provide
this right to opt out with full compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously we intend to respect the provinces' fields of
jurisdiction. For the rest, we will discuss the matter with our
counterparts, and we will see.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. It concerns the
opposition of at least two former Liberal health ministers, the
member for Sudbury and Monique Bégin, to the tolerance being
extended by the government to private-for-profit clinics in the
medicare system and the 12 principles that were signed onto by
the government with Alberta. Both of these former ministers
have declared these to be a danger to medicare.
Is the minister prepared today to repudiate these ministers or
will he do as we urge him to do and repudiate the 12 principles?
1425
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in relation to the comments made by the member for Sudbury, I
take it from the reports that there is some suggestion there is
an old boys' network, that we do each other favours out of
friendship. I want to make it clear to the House and to the hon.
member that I have no intention of pulling my punches under the
Canada Health Act simply because of my warm and cozy relationship
with Mike Harris and Ralph Klein.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I did not raise the comment about the old boys' club. I
raised the question about the 12 principles that the government
had signed onto and I asked the minister whether he was prepared
to repudiate those principles.
I do not care whether it is an old boys' club or an old girls'
club. The fact of the matter is that this government is now
tolerating private-for-profit clinics and has been doing so for
some time. Former ministers of health have called attention to
this. We are at a critical point. Bill 11 will move the
involvement of these clinics up to a level that threatens
medicare in the way that extra billing and user fees did before
Monique Bégin acted in 1984.
It is time for the minister to act in that same tradition. Will
he do so?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can assure the member that we will do everything required to
protect the integrity of the Canada Health Act.
Let me correct something the member said. He refers to 12
principles being signed onto. Let me make it clear that there is
no agreement between the Government of Canada and any provincial
government with respect to principles beyond the Canada Health
Act and nothing in any principles promulgated by any provincial
government will ever stand in the way of our enforcing the Canada
Health Act.
Finally, in relation to bill 11, as I have assured the member
and the House often, we shall act at the appropriate time in what
we regard as in the best interest of the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, no one in the history of this country has done more
to destroy Canadians' access to health care than this Prime
Minister. Just ask the member for Sudbury.
Will the Prime Minister move immediately to restore the cuts
that his government has made to provincial transfers and commit
to long term federal funding for health care?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has an unusual attitude. The Canada
Health Act was passed just before a government, led by his party,
took office. His party did not do a thing to enforce the Canada
Health Act for nine years. To that party it was dead. It was
revived by this Liberal government when it enforced the Canada
Health Act for the first time. We restored funding for health
care. We will continue to do our job on behalf of all Canadians
to protect health care for all Canadians.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, let us set the record straight. It was this
government that cut $35 billion out of health transfers. As a
member of this government said herself, “You get the type of
health care system you pay for”.
Of every dollar that is spent in health care, the federal
government puts one dime toward the provincial costs of health
care.
Will the Prime Minister listen to his former Minister of Health
and meet with the premiers and fix this crisis? Maybe the
finance minister should bring his cheque book with him.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, next year transfers to the provinces will be $31
billion. That is an all time high. Transfers in terms of
equalization will be at an all time high.
The fact is that this government put a floor under the transfers
to make sure that they would never drop further, a drop which had
occurred under the previous Tory government. At the same time,
this government has invested amounts in health care research that
the Tory government could not even contemplate. We have put
money into the child tax benefit, helping poor and middle income
families.
These are all things that the Tory government let lie fallow and
this government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister appears to be in a serious conflict of
interest as a result of his relationship with Connaught
Laboratories in the 1980s.
Minutes from CDC board meetings could clear the air. The ethics
counsellor passed those minutes on to the finance department and
he warned that they would have to be released under the Access to
Information Act.
1430
When we asked for those minutes from the finance department, it
denied it had those documents. Why?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all the purpose of the ethics counsellor's
report is to determine the very question the member has raised. I
was the person who asked the ethics counsellor to undertake that
full examination.
As far as access to information is concerned, I mentioned
yesterday that I was not involved in that for obvious reasons,
given the nature of the query. I have asked my department to do
a thorough examination of the whole matter, and at the same time,
in order to make sure it is as open and transparent as possible,
my department has invited the information commissioner to come in
and participate fully.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on May 25 the minister stood in the House and promised
that he would release those minutes. Perhaps that was before he
had read those minutes. Was it the contents of the minutes that
caused the minister to refuse to release those documents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have made it very clear that I have not seen the
minutes that the hon. member is referring to. One thing which is
very clear is that all pertinent information will be made
available when the ethics counsellor makes his report.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
regards the tainted blood issue, in which the Minister of
Finance could be found to have been in a conflict of interest,
the Bloc Quebecois asked for an investigation as early as 1995.
We are now in the year 2000 and the Prime Minister confirmed
yesterday that the ethics counsellor was looking at the issue
and would submit a report.
Can the Prime Minister assure us that the ethics counsellor's
report will be released as soon as possible, before the next
general election?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that the ethics counsellor's
report and all the documents relating to this issue will be
tabled in this House as soon as the ethics counsellor has
completed his report?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister said that the document will be made public once
he has received it.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance department has shown a
high level of interest in this potential conflict of interest
case. First a department official followed an ethics
investigator to CDC's successor, Nova Chemicals in Calgary. Now
we have documents that show that the finance minister himself
seemed preoccupied with Nova.
The minister had the most senior ranks of his department
involved in gathering information about Nova's move from Calgary
to Pittsburgh. Was the finance minister really just concerned
about the 65 jobs or did he have his senior finance officials
digging because Nova was on his mind for other reasons?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is ludicrous. The fact is that when this issue
first arose it was quite clear, as I stated in the House, that I
asked my department to look into it right away. They began to do
so. A very short time thereafter, I asked the ethics counsellor
if he would undertake a full and thorough examination of the
whole thing. For a period of time they operated on a parallel
track until such time as the department turned the whole thing
over to the ethics counsellor. That is exactly what happened.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let us look at what is ludicrous. The
deputy minister's office, two assistant deputy ministers, an
associate deputy minister and other senior officials were tasked
with getting information on Nova Chemicals for the Minister of
Finance.
That is pretty high priced help, I would suggest.
1435
The finance minister no longer sits as a director of CDC. In
fact the CDC no longer exists, yet he is intensely interested in
its successor. Does he commit the same high priced resources to
tracking all companies or just Nova Chemicals?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to be quite honest, I am not quite sure I know what the
hon. member is talking about in terms of all of this assemblage
of public servants who are looking into one company.
The fact is part of Nova Chemicals did move to Pittsburgh and
many people were quite interested in the move. However I do not
think there was anything untoward and I do not think that the
Department of Finance took any untoward interest in that.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board said that, in her opinion, Human
Resources Development Canada was able to look after its own
affairs.
Since she is so confident, can the President of the Treasury
Board confirm that she has seen the Placeteco file?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Repentigny knows very well that Treasury Board issues
policies and directives with respect to grant and contribution
transfer payments.
He is also very well aware that we worked closely with Human
Resources Development Canada to establish a plan of action, that
we are there to help and support them, and that we are fully
confident that corrective action will be taken.
However, the daily business of this department is the
responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for all
her confidence, she has not seen the Placeteco file. The problem
in this file is the invoices.
Is the President of the Treasury Board able to tell us whether
she has seen Placeteco's invoices and are we to understand that
she is agreeing to back up her colleague, the Minister of Human
Resources Development?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
may have to give the member for Repentigny a lesson in public
administration.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: I may have to give the member for
Repentigny a lesson in public administration in order to make it
clear to him that Treasury Board approval is not required for the
grants and contributions in all these files, that they are the
responsibility of the designated minister and that therefore he
should be addressing his question to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
* * *
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister helped make
CDC's decision to buy tainted blood. He later helped make the
Liberals' decision not to provide—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the question.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, he later helped make
the Liberals' decision not to provide compensation for the years
he sat on the board of CDC. The finance minister thereby avoided
being connected with any liability to the victims of tainted
blood during his tenure at CDC. He was at the cabinet table with
a clear conflict of interest.
Why has the government failed to deal promptly with this clear
issue?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member, who is a person I respect,
ought to ask herself whether she is not demeaning parliament when
she stands up making statements such as that.
1440
The hon. member knows as well that I have stated that I really
have no recollection of having dealt with this issue in any way,
shape or form when I was with the CDC.
The purpose of the ethics counsellor's report is to look at
every single document to determine what the facts were and then
to respond to the question of conflict of interest. She knows
that is what the ethics counsellor's report is supposed to deal
with, and we will deal with it as soon as it is submitted.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the question is why has the finance
minister's involvement with tainted blood gone unanswered for so
long?
The minister himself promised to make relevant documents public.
Now we know that his department denied having documents which the
ethics counsellor himself confirmed that it has. Now the
minister is trying to make us believe that a report is coming,
but we have another document which says that the whole
investigation which would have allowed this report to be released
was finished five months ago.
There are some real credibility issues here. Canadians need an
answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear the last part of the
question because of the noise. I believe the Deputy Prime
Minister was on his feet. To the extent that it deals with the
administrative responsibility of the government, I will permit
the Deputy Prime Minister to answer if he so wishes.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member made reference to a document signed by
the ethics counsellor which she alleges says that the
investigation by the ethics counsellor had been completed five
months ago. I have what I believe is that document in my hand.
It does not say that at all. All it says is that after looking
at certain minutes, the ethics counsellor was in a position to
conclude his report. It did not say he had concluded his report.
The hon. member that is the finance critic and his colleague
ought to stand and apologize for what they have done, contrary to
the spirit and rules of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Solicitor General of Canada was informed that an
investigation into the Placeteco affair had been called for.
His response was that he would read the letter and then respond
to it.
I have an extremely simple question for him today, one that
requires an extremely simple answer. Has he read the letter,
and has he asked the RCMP to investigate?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, I read the letter when I received it
yesterday afternoon, like any other letter I receive. I took the
appropriate action that I would take with any letter I receive of
that nature and referred it to the RCMP to evaluate.
* * *
CFB PETAWAWA
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke
we are very fortunate to have one of Canada's super bases, CFB
Petawawa. There is an absolutely scandalous rumour going around
that CFB Petawawa could close. I would like to ask the Minister
of National Defence to please comment on the future of CFB
Petawawa.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. It
is a scandalous rumour. We have no intention of closing it. I
have been there a couple of times in the last couple of years
opening new buildings and facilities which we put millions of
dollars into. It indicates the importance of that base.
Furthermore, many of the personnel, the troops from that base,
are presently serving this country well in Kosovo. We should be
congratulating them for their great work.
CFB Petawawa will continue to be a major base in the operations
of our military.
* * *
1445
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, stonewall seems to be the government's watchword these
days. Every time a Liberal minister gets in trouble it is
stonewall. That is the cornerstone of HRDC policy and now the
disease seems to have spread to the Department of Finance.
We are talking about the CDC minutes. The Minister of Finance
knows he has the minutes. We know that he has the minutes. He
has the legal obligation to produce the minutes. When will he
produce the minutes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me repeat what I have said.
The fact is that not only did I ask the ethics counsellor to
carry out a full investigation of this matter, and I believe the
report will be out in the very near future, but in terms of the
question of access to information, yesterday, as a result of the
discussions, I asked my department to carry out a thorough
examination of the matter. At the same time, in order to ensure
that this will be done in a way that is as open and transparent
as possible, I have asked my department to invite the information
commissioner to participate fully in the examination.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is all very good, but the Minister of Finance has
30 days to deliver these documents, and they are long overdue.
He could produce them now while we are waiting for the report and
the investigation is ongoing.
Will the minister produce them now and have the investigation
later?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all documents pertinent to this matter will be made
available when the ethics counsellor submits his report, which
will happen in the very near future I am led to understand.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, that shipload of waste PCBs from an American
military base in Japan may not be unloaded in Seattle after all.
Dock workers there will not touch it and, in any event, the
American government has a law against accepting toxic waste from
abroad if it contains PCBs.
Now there is an allegation that Canada may in the past have
accepted waste PCBs from the American military without telling
anyone about it. Can the government tell us if in fact we have
ever accepted shipments of waste PCBs in Canada?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to tell the
House that the Minister of the Environment and the officials in
both the Pacific and Ontario regions have done a fine job in
managing this recent proposed shipment to Canada.
The shipment will not, in fact, come to Canada, and we have
instituted a new policy with the department of defence that for
shipments below the legal limits of 50 parts per million, or any
shipment, we must receive prior notification.
The Speaker: Order, please. If members would like to
have conversations, I would ask them to go into the lobbies. We
would like to hear the questions and the answers.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly unwilling or unable to answer
my question.
It was mentioned at a news conference about a week ago that
Canada had accepted waste PCBs from the American military. That
same allegation was made yesterday on national television. I
repeat my question and would appreciate an answer. Can the
government tell us if we have ever accepted shipments of waste
PCBs in Canada?
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon.
member opposite and all members of the House that the CEPA
legislation passed by the government instituted a whole new
policy for dealing with any waste, and it complies with the Basel
Convention. It is a strong piece of legislation. We will use
the tools in that legislation to make sure we have a strong
environmental policy for this country, and we will do the right
thing.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We have been
told that CBC management is again looking at making major cuts in
the regions. In Newfoundland we have already lost most of our
regional CBC programming, with the exception of the supper hour
news program called Here and Now. The downgrading or
elimination of that program and 500 jobs are being looked at to
be replaced with centralized news out of Toronto.
Is Here and Now about to become “there and gone”?
1450
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that I read those
same rumours in the newspaper this morning. I can tell him that
the last thing we want is centralized news out of Toronto.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, let
me say to the minister that Canada is more than the view from
Toronto. Canada is a community of communities, each of which has
its own legitimate point of view.
Will the minister commit to maintaining local CBC programming
right across this nation? Will she commit to it here and now?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that the role of the CBC is to
link people across this great country. I can tell him that I
have no intention of micro-managing the CBC, but I can underscore
the fact that we do not want a centralized news system out of one
city, however big and fantastic it may be.
* * *
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the first anniversary of the tragic shootings at OC
Transpo in Ottawa which resulted in the deaths of five workers.
The OC Transpo inquest produced a series of recommendations
concerning violence, harassment and workplace problems.
Has the Minister of Labour had the opportunity to review these
recommendations with her cabinet colleagues, and are there any
changes contemplated to federal workplace policies?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the anniversary of this tragic event I would like to
offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends of the
workers whose lives were lost that day. I would like to convey
to those families that I will continue to push forward with
legislative changes that will provide workers with protection
against workplace violence.
In that spirit, I strongly urge all members of the House to
support the passage of Bill C-12. Bill C-12 would provide the
authority we need to develop regulations to prevent violence in
the workplace and to better protect employees.
* * *
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister gave the same promise that he
is giving today to provide documents about his involvement with
CDC last May in the House. He tells us today to wait when we
know that his department has these documents.
Why will he not simply clear the air on his involvement with CDC
by providing these documents today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in terms of the access to information request, I have
already stated that I have asked the department to conduct a
thorough examination to see exactly what the situation is, and I
have asked the information commissioner to fully participate.
What is by far the most important aspect of all of this is that
the ethics counsellor will very soon be releasing his report and
all of the documents will be revealed therein.
* * *
[Translation]
VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few years
ago, Canada's TV broadcasters developed a code of ethics on
violence on television, which they apply on a voluntary basis.
Violence on the small screen is of concern to parents, and the
time has come to take steps to make this code of ethics
mandatory.
Can the minister tell us whether she plans any concrete action
on this by taking on the bill I introduced yesterday in this
House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have great respect for private members' bills. For
this reason, I am going to let the private members' bill process
run its course. I do not wish to take over the hon. member's
bill, although it is very worthwhile and merits discussion here
by all hon. members.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the past
the heritage minister has personally intervened to save CBC radio
and Radio Canada International. Will she commit today to
intervene with cash and save regional TV news programs if the
corporation decides to kill supper hour shows? That is what the
CRTC wants and that is what Canadians want.
1455
She has said that she does not want to see one big program
coming out of Toronto, but my question is, will she guarantee
that it will not happen while she is the minister, and will she
provide the money, where necessary, to make that guarantee?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite was at the standing
committee when the president of the CBC attended and said he was
not looking for more money at this time.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, some time
ago the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced a compensation
package for the merchant mariners.
According to whatever length of service they had, they would
receive $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000, and if they were a prisoner
of war they would receive $24,000. Of the cheques that have been
going out, they have received 60%.
Will the minister rise in the House today and guarantee that
these brave veterans will receive their full 100% compensation
package, even if that means going back to your cabinet if you do
not have enough money right now?
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to please
address her questions through the Chair.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that
so far we have sent out 1,000 cheques to our merchant navy
veterans.
I have no reason to believe that all of the merchant navy
veterans who have been identified will not get their full 100%,
and that is because of the excellent work done by the veterans'
organizations and the all-party standing committee of the House,
which brought this issue to a successful conclusion.
* * *
[Translation]
FRENCH LANGUAGE BROADCASTING
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the
Minister of Canadian Heritage explain what her request to the
CRTC, which was announced today, means for Canada's French
language minority communities?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today, the federal government asked the CRTC to
determine the number of hours of French language broadcasting
for francophone minorities and its impact on these communities
across Canada.
I invite francophone communities from all over the country to
take part in this dialogue and to voice their opinions. I also
want to thank the senators and members of parliament who worked
to promote French in Canada, particularly through broadcasting.
* * *
[English]
CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on May 25, 1999 the finance minister promised that he
would instruct his department to do a thorough search of
documents related to this tainted blood issue and he would then
release them to the public.
On July 8 we know that the ethics counsellor faxed those
documents to the finance department. That was a long time ago.
Why did the finance minister break his promise to reveal those
documents to the public? Why has he done that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is obviously running out of questions.
I have already answered that question three times.
There is a thorough examination being carried out on how the
access to information requests were handled, and the information
commissioner will be part of that investigation.
What is really important is that the documents the hon. member
seeks, and all other pertinent documents, will be made available
to the hon. member when the ethics counsellor makes his report
public.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more and more
countries are opting for the compulsory labelling of GMOs. In
Canada, every poll conducted in the past five years shows that
consumers want GMOs to be labeled, but the federal government is
going in circles.
What is the Minister of Agriculture waiting for to take action
in response to the unanimous request of consumers to immediately
implement compulsory labelling of genetically modified
organisms?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat for the benefit of the hon.
member and all Canadians that before a system of labelling can be
put in place it must be meaningful, credible and enforceable.
The process that is in place at the present time is being led by
the Canadian Standards Council, with the participation of many
organizations and consumer associations to develop the criteria
that could be used for the labelling of foods in Canada.
* * *
1500
HEALTH
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health
who will know that not a single cent has been paid to the victims
of hepatitis C.
A constituent of mine brought in a letter she received from her
doctor last week calling for her to use the drug Rebetron. The
cost will be approximately $1,700 a month for the next year. She
says she does not have $1,700 extra a month and she has asked me
to ask the Minister of Health what she should do.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I share the member's frustration. I am told the court has now
approved the agreement to which we contributed $800 million. I am
told the court has now approved the administrator. I am told the
administrator is working to get the cheques out to the people who
are in the class.
I also want to point out to the member that for those who are
not included in the settlement the government put $300 million in
the hands of the provinces, if they will accept it, to pay for
exactly this kind of expense, in other words drugs or other
health expenses that are not already covered by public insurance.
If the member would share the details of the case with me, I
will make sure that whatever can be done within what is in place
is done for this person.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, with
regard to the merchant navy veterans, what has been sent out to
them is a cheque worth 60% of what was promised to them. Now the
Department of Veterans of Affairs is saying that the other 40%
may go out by the end of July, if there is enough money in the
bank.
I want an assurance that there will be enough money to give
merchant navy veterans the 100% they have been promised.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the guidelines, the method of payment,
the amount of the payment and the review period were all
determined by veterans organizations representing the merchant
navy, the legion and the Council of Veterans Organizations for
all of Canada.
They sat down and decided the rules. I am their servant. They
are my boss.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think Canadians and parliament are interested in what
might be the business for the rest of this week and for the
following week, the last week before the Easter break.
In particular, they would be interested to know whether the
government House leader plans to bring in time allocation on Bill
C-23, which has been somewhat controversial. We would like
assurances from the House leader that it will not happen.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me to
assure him that the opposition would not cause obstruction. I
would like to do my best to assure the House of that but it does
occur seldom. It does occur every now and then.
1505
Mr. Jim Abbott: Seldom.
Hon. Don Boudria: Someone is trying to correct me.
Perhaps the opposition is being obstructionist more than seldom.
This afternoon we will have the following business. Perhaps it
will require a special order of the House on which there has been
consultation among House leaders in an effort to reconcile
various agendas.
In any case, the business for this afternoon, following the
adoption of the motion which I hope to offer to the House, would
be as follows. After the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, a
representative from the New Democratic Party and a representative
from the Conservative Party complete their remarks on Bill C-25,
we would then commence the second reading of Bill C-19.
Obviously to switch orders in the middle of the afternoon
requires a motion, which I will put to the House in a minute.
Bill C-19 is the bill regarding war crimes. Tomorrow we shall
return to Bill C-25 which we will be debating, all things be
equal, in a minute.
On Monday as well as Tuesday it is our intention to complete
report stage and third reading of Bill C-23. On Wednesday we
would hope to begin with the budget implementation bill to be
introduced in the House tomorrow morning on the basis of the ways
and means motion adopted this morning.
If necessary, we will continue with this bill on Thursday,
followed by the following bills. I do not know how many of them
we will complete but I will list them nonetheless: Bill C-24,
the GST technical legislation amendments dating from last year's
budget; Bill C-11, the Devco bill; Bill C-5, the tourism bill;
Bill C-18, the criminal code amendments; and Bill C-15 regarding
water exports.
Having now read the business of the House, I believe the chief
government whip has an amendment to what I have offered.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit of co-operation, discussions have
taken place between all the parties and I believe you would find
consent for the following:
That the present debate on second reading of Bill C-25 be
adjourned after one intervention from a representative of the
Bloc Quebecois and one from the Conservatives in order to allow
the House to begin consideration of second reading of Bill C-19.
That, once we begin debate at second reading of Bill C-19, the
first speaker for the government will be the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, followed by a member of Her Majesty's official
opposition, the Canadian Alliance. The third intervention will
be from a member of the New Democratic Party who would speak for
20 minutes.
[Translation]
Under that same agreement, the next speaker for the Bloc
Quebecois will have the floor for 40 minutes, as provided by the
rules of the House.
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. government whip have unanimous
consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1999
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, an
act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the
Budget Implementation Act, 1999, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today we begin second reading of Bill C-25, which implements
certain measures from last year's budget, i.e. the finance
minister's 1999-2000 budget.
1510
I cannot say that it gives me great pleasure to discuss this
bill. Everyone will remember how terribly disappointed we were
by the budget brought down last year by the Minister of Finance.
We were disappointed because, once again, the Minister of
Finance did not tell us the whole truth about how the nation's
finances were handled. He did not tell us about the various
avenues open to him to provide relief to taxpayers and the
disadvantaged, to introduce truly constructive measures, to put a
stop to cuts in social programs, for example.
Moreover, I have a clear recollection that on that date, that is
February 17, 1999, the Globe and Mail minced no words in
describing the Minister of Finance as lacking in imagination,
and in stating that he had never been in a situation of managing
growth and surpluses, and ought to let someone else take over.
The budget brought down just a few weeks ago was no exception to
the rule. It is, in all aspects, along the same lines as last
year's, in other words, disappointing and drab. Last year's
budget was so drab in fact that I can hardly keep my eyes open
today when referring to it.
First of all, the Minister of Finance, sticking to tradition,
both last year and this year—and this will go on until he quits,
which we hope will be soon, because we are fed up with all his
sneakiness—has hidden the true surplus from us.
Hon. members need only to look at the figures.
Since 1994, if one took all the budgets, all the Minister of
Finance's figures, one would see that every time he opened his
mouth, speaking first of the deficit and only after of
surpluses, within a few months, his forecasts were shown to be
close to 100% off, sometimes even 150%.
In the 1999 budget, the one of interest to us here, the minister
said “For this year 1999-2000”—the fiscal year that has just ended
on March 31—“the surplus will be only $3 billion”. A scant few
months later, in his economic update, exactly seven months after
bringing down his budget, he informed us that his surplus for
the last fiscal year might be as high as $5 billion. This means
a difference of $2 billion in just a few months.
With the 2000-01 budget, this year's budget, a few weeks ago, the
Minister of Finance again revised the figure for his surplus to
$5.7 billion. That was at the end of February. The figure is
therefore $2.5 billion more than it was two and a half months
previously.
The Fiscal Monitor of the Department of Finance has just brought
out its most recent estimates based on the first ten months of
the last fiscal year. It places the surplus for this fiscal
year at nearly $12 billion. That is a bit of a difference.
Do you know what the Bloc Quebecois was saying as of February
last year, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget?
The Bloc Quebecois said, based on the most reasonable
assumptions, the information available to us over a year ago,
that the surplus would be around $12 billion.
And so, doing an analysis using generally recognized parameters,
a personal computer and a small team, not the hundreds of public
servants in the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada, but
with a few people, we succeeded, 12 months ahead, in predicting
that the surplus for 1999-2000 would be about $12 billion, exactly
as The Fiscal Monitor just said a few weeks ago, based on the
first ten months of the last fiscal year.
We managed it not because we are smarter than other people. You
will agree, and you have already said so to me, Mr. Speaker,
that we are good. There is no doubt about it. We have not been
wrong since 1994. When we make forecasts, we are rarely wrong.
When the Minister of Finance makes forecasts, he has always been
wrong. They have not been minor mistakes. As I mentioned, he
has been out by 100% or 150%. That is a lot. That denies
people the opportunity of really evaluating what is available to
this government to implement the measures expected of it. This
impedes democracy. It is undemocratic to work this way, very
undemocratic.
1515
This does not give us the range of options. It does not tell us
what the government could do to alleviate the plight of the
neediest members of society.
The Minister of Finance shows up with so-called unexpected
surpluses either because he was unable to foresee them or
because he hid them from us for a whole year. He uses that money
to lower the debt, or he thoughtlessly jumps the gun regarding
certain expenditures and steps in provincial jurisdictions, just
like the self-sufficient and know-it-all federal Minister of Health
has been doing these past few months. This is what the minister
is doing.
With the prospect of a surplus we had already estimated at
$12 billion back then, we thought the Minister of Finance would
take concrete measures to lower taxes and give taxpayers a
break. Not only did he not do that with the potential $12 billion
surplus in the last fiscal year, but he is not doing it this
year either, when the surplus for fiscal year 2000-01 could
exceed $21 billion.
The minister's tax reductions are ridiculously low this year and
they were even lower last year. In fact, the results of these
reductions are totally insignificant.
Let me give you an example. For the 1999-2000 fiscal year, middle
income taxpayers, that is those who earn between $30,000 and
$70,000, will save an average of $150 in taxes. This is over a
period of 365 days. Just do the calculation.
This will not even buy a cup of coffee.
But there were winners in 1999, as there were in the last
budget—the rich. In 1999, if you were one of the lucky few with
an income of $250,000 or higher, the elimination of the 3%
surtax saved you over $3,500 in taxes.
You are a middle income earner. The federal government has been
relying on you heavily since 1993 to help put its fiscal house
in order. There is a hefty $12 billion surplus in 1999-2000 but
it does not help middle income earners. Those who are already
very rich get another break in the form of a $3,500 tax saving
starting with the tax year for which we are now filing.
It is sad.
The Minister of Finance tells us that there were tax cuts last
year, and that there will also be some this year, but things are
no better this year. In fiscal 2000-01, it will be pretty much
the same—$150, $300, in real tax savings. Once again, with the
cuts, the 5% surtax that remained, as well as the increase in
the capital gains exclusion rate, it is those in the $250,000
plus income bracket that will benefit.
It is not $3,500. Another $4,000 has been added. Both measures
taken together, i.e. last year's elimination of the 3% surtax,
and this year's increase in the capital gains exclusion rate
from 75% to 66%—33% of capital gains are not subject to any
taxes—put another $4,000 in these folks' pockets. In two years,
they have saved $7,500 in taxes.
However, those earning between $30,000 and $70,000 had a tax
saving of $300 for the entire year, and this has just been
described as fair.
Last year, with the $12 billion in surplus, which was known
about but deliberately concealed from us, the Minister of
Finance could have revised the zero taxation levels, that is the
point at which families start paying federal income tax.
In this connection, I will point out a few figures that
demonstrate the considerable imbalance that exists between the
federal taxation system and Quebec's system.
To take the example of a couple with two dependent children and
one single employment income, the federal cut-off point after
which they start to pay tax is $13,719.
Do hon. members know at what point they start paying Quebec
taxes? At $30,316. Hon. members see the imbalance here. Back
in 1999, with a potential surplus of $12 billion, the Minister
of Finance could have moved the zero tax threshold upward.
1520
Let us take another example, a retired couple, age 65, with no
children. They start paying federal income tax at the $20,000
level, while in Quebec the level is $26,000. This could have
been brought back into balance. With less of a surplus
available to it, Quebec has done more with less than the feds,
with surplus funds coming out of their ears, not to mention out
of the pockets of the Minister of Finance. However, what is
spilling out of his pockets is not his money, but ours. It is
the money of the middle income taxpayers, the largest group of
taxpayers in Canada. Yet he has done nothing.
He could also have changed the employment insurance plan, this
man who says he has a lot of compassion for the most
disadvantaged. Since becoming the Minister of Finance, he has
put people in the hole, tossed them out on the street. With his
savage measures of the right, this minister who claims to have a
social side, almost socialist the way he puts it, this man has
pushed people at the threshold of middle income into a low income
bracket. He has pushed them into poverty. He has thrown them
into the pit of poverty. He did so in 1999 and is still doing it
in 2000 with his latest budget.
He could have changed the employment insurance plan, which
covers only 42% of the targeted clientele, the unemployed, who
pay. We know, now, all workers pay into employment insurance, as
do all employers.
When these people lose their job, fewer than half of them will
benefit from employment insurance. Six out of ten unemployed
persons are excluded from the employment insurance plan. He
could have changed the plan.
We are not saying the plan has to be permissive, open, with
money pouring out uncontrolled. We know that Department of Human
Resources Development has no need for our suggestions on this
subject. We know that in this department they stalk the
unemployed in order to not give them what they are entitled to as
benefits. They wake them up at 6 a.m. to make sure they are
available for work, they treat them like robbers and cheaters.
We can see too how this department treats friends of the party.
They grease their palms, they give them hush money.
They get a $1.2 million grant, no questions asked, but unemployed
workers are asked to return $5 of $200 received, because their
benefits have been reviewed. They are hunted down like thieves.
The friends of the party are not treated like thieves. The
federal government shuts it eyes and deliberately hands over the
$1 million, not even requiring that any jobs be created. We have
the HRDC scandal to prove it.
On another topic, the Minister of Finance could have overhauled
the EI scheme. He could have arranged things so that most of
those who pay premiums qualify. But no, he did not. He did not
do so in 1999 with a $12 billion surplus, nor did he do so this
year with a surplus of over $21 billion. When will he do so?
When will he decide to stop abandoning those who are already
down and out? These people do not qualify for EI because the
criteria are too restrictive, and they do not qualify for
welfare because they have assets that they must first sell.
They are being reduced to poverty, put out in the street, driven
to suicide. There are people living out these tragedies today.
The Minister of Finance has a $12 billion surplus this year, and
he will have a $21 billion surplus at the end of this fiscal, but
he has done nothing to help these people out. This is not just
unacceptable, it is completely revolting.
The federal government used the 1999 budget to pull a fast one
on Quebec. The Minister of Finance says he is a Quebecer and
holds international fora in Montreal, and naturally we are very
pleased.
Montreal is becoming the financial capital not only of Canada
but, thanks to the initiatives taken by Mr. Landry, of North
America. It is perfectly normal to recognize that and to at
least hold a first meeting of G-20 members in Montreal.
He claims to be a Quebecer, but why did he take advantage of the
1999 budget to pull a fast one on Quebec by unilaterally
changing the formula for the Canada social transfer? Until then,
the sharing was based on a number of criteria, including
population. But population was not the primary factor. The
primary factor was the need for the portion of federal transfers
earmarked for social assistance.
This Minister of Finance, who claims to be very understanding,
to treat Quebec well, to be a good representative for our
province, unilaterally decided to pull a fast one on Quebec and
to amend that formula. The result is that Ontario was the big
winner, following the $2 billion adjustment made to the Canada
social transfer in 1999.
1525
By using population as the primary criterion, Ontario benefits
because its population is larger than that of Quebec. Ontario is
the province with the largest population in Canada.
Half of the $2 billion adjustment went to Ontario. The richest
province in Canada received $1 billion out of the adjustment to
the Canada social transfer, to fund social assistance, higher
education and health.
Since 1994, a well-oiled system has been put in place by the
Minister of Finance in order to arrive, by 2004, at cumulative
cuts of $32 billion in social transfers to the provinces. By
2004, Quebec will have absorbed 50% of these cuts, which
represents a $16 billion shortfall.
They pulled a quick one over on it in the 1999 budget by
exchanging the criterion for one based on population. Ontario
won the prize. Quebec has absorbed double the amount it should
have in federal government cuts.
As the Prime Minister did last week, government members from
Quebec were bragging that, in 1999, Quebec received a $1 billion
adjustment in equalization payments. Of course, we got $1
billion, because equalization payments are calculated
mathematically rather than politically. The Liberals make
political hay with it. No matter, they make political hay with
everything, such as the fate of the sick and the most
disadvantaged.
These people make political hay with everything and delay the
right decisions until the next election campaign instead of
easing things for people who have suffered for three or four
years. They play petty politics.
They gave Quebec a $1 billion adjustment in equalization
payments. Why? Because they did not give it enough before under
the brutal calculations of the equalization formulae.
However, what they do not say is that what they gave with one
hand they took away with the other. I talked of the new formula
for allocating the Canada social transfer. In this, they took
from Quebec what it was entitled to. There is also a $2 billion
shortfall Quebec is still seeking for having harmonized the GST
with the QST in 1991.
The federal Minister of Finance, who claims to be a Quebecer and
to stand up for Quebec, gave $800 million to three little
maritime provinces, because they harmonized their sales tax with
the GST. Quebec did so in 1991 and is seeking compensation from
the Minister of Finance.
We did exactly the same calculations as were done for the three
maritime provinces, coming up with a total of $2 billion. The
Minister of Finance informed us “No, you are not entitled to
it”.
We made adjustments. The Government of Quebec also collects the
GST on behalf of the federal government. It is calling for $2
billion in compensation for having carried out harmonization of
the QST with the GST. Quebec is asking for nothing more and
nothing less than the fair treatment according the three
maritime provinces, and yet it is being told it is not entitled
to it.
There is also an annual shortfall of another $2 billion in
federal government procurement of goods and services. We are
not the ones saying so. It comes from Statistics Canada. In
relation to its demographic weight, Quebec ought to have $2
billion more each year in federal government procurement of
goods and services.
This adds up as follows: $6 billion in cuts to the Canada social
transfer since 1994, $2 billion shortfall annually in goods and
services procurement, and $2 billion in compensation for
harmonization with the GST, for a total of $10 billion. Here
they are boasting about making us a gift of $1 billion, while we
were shortchanged to the tune of $10 billion.
That is liking having a burglar break into your house, one who
might just happen to be Minister of Finance. He helps himself
to $10,000 of your money. You chase him and nab him at the
corner, and he gives you back $1,000. You hug him in gratitude
for returning 10% of what he took. There is a limit to what a
person can put up with.
In the 30 seconds remaining to me I will just raise an important
point that comes up in Bill C-25, which is the trust set up for
hepatitis C compensation.
As announced in 1999, this bill proposes to consider the
compensation received by the hepatitis C victims as tax exempt.
1530
I take this opportunity to remind the House that those who were
infected before 1986 or after 1990 are still not entitled to any
compensation, even though they are victims just like the others.
We must remember that, and this is a good opportunity to remind
the House of it.
Moreover, those who are entitled to compensation are still
waiting for their cheques because, seemingly, these cheques are
in the hands of the lawyers. It might be a good idea for the
government—and I will conclude with this message—not only to
think about tax treatment, but also to use its money to treat
those who are not entitled to compensation on the same level as
the others. These people are no less affected by hepatitis than
the others and they too should be compensated.
We will vote against Bill C-25 at second reading. It reflects
the finance minister's lack of imagination, his total lack of
compassion for the needy and his refusal to follow up on the
numerous requests made by the governments of Quebec and the other
provinces to restore the Canada social transfer, to review the
employment insurance reform and, in the case of Quebec, the
minister's refusal to follow up on a request to be compensated
for having harmonized the GST and the TVQ—the federal government
owes $2 billion to Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois has been asking since 1993 that Quebec be
treated fairly regarding the procurement of goods and services
the allocation of budgets for research and development. We are
still waiting for a reply from the Minister of Finance. No reply
is provided in the 1999 budget, in the 2000 budget, and even less
so in the 1999 budget implementation bill, namely Bill C-5.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-25, the Income
Tax Amendments Act, 1999.
Yesterday I attended the Business Council on National Issues'
annual CEO summit in Toronto. At that summit there was an
immense amount of discussion surrounding some of the issues
facing not just the business community but all Canadians in the
complex and hypercompetitive, globally integrated economy that we
are entrenched in today.
I heard a lot of very serious and legitimate concerns about the
future of our country. I was dismayed by a sense of
disconnection between the people in that room, who were working
hard to create greater levels of opportunity for Canadians and
greater levels of prosperity for Canada, and the people here in
parliament and the House of Commons.
Yesterday morning the Minister of Industry spoke to the group
assembled. His speech contained some very positive messages with
respect to the future competitiveness of Canada. However, in the
question and answers after, he clearly disappointed those
assembled by demonstrating that he lacked the vision and the
leadership to provide the types of initiatives that Canada needs
at this juncture to forge forward as a globally competitive
country.
The minister was asked a question by Izzy Asper, the CEO of
CanWest Global Communications Corp. and head of the Global
Television Network, concerning the Canadian tax system. I will
quote Mr. Asper.
The Canadian tax system that we're living under was last
reformed 32 years ago. It is
obsolete and the world it was designed to deal with no longer
exists.
The (system) is a nightmare of complexity, a sea of
uncertainty...The tax system is now anti-business, anti-private
sector and anti-entrepreneurial.
In short, Mr. Asper was saying that our tax system is
anti-growth. I would argue that is clearly not to the benefit
of any Canadians, whether in the business community or outside
of it.
1535
In his response to that very serious question, the Minister of
Industry said that a fundamental reform of the tax system would
require an enormous amount of consensus among the taxpayers. He
effectively said that it was impossible to reform the tax system
because it would require a consensus.
In his statement, I think he was speaking to a larger truth,
that is, to the lack of vision on the government's side in terms
of these very important issues and the incrementalist,
poll-driven style of this government relative to many issues, in
particular, economic issues. In its tinkering, in its short term
focus on next week's polls, it is ignoring the interests of
Canadians well into the next century.
We heard from a number of individuals who were participating in
the conference yesterday. A gentleman by the name of Tom
Axworthy spoke to the group assembled. As an experienced former
professor at Harvard, he indicated that in the last several years
he has seen the percentage of expatriate Canadian students
studying at Harvard, who returned to Canada, significantly
reduced, to the extent that now virtually none of the Harvard
graduates from Canada are actually returning to Canada. They are
staying in the U.S.
These are very troubling and not simply anecdotal experiences.
These are signs of a greater truth. The Conference Board of
Canada's report on brain drain indicated that the number of
Canadians leaving Canada to go to the U.S. seeking greater levels
of opportunity and growth for themselves and their families has
grown from 16,000 per year to over 100,000 in the last year.
These types of statistics are very troubling for Canada.
We also heard yesterday from the U.S. economist Lester Thurow
who, a number of years ago when the Liberals were in opposition,
spoke to a Liberal policy gathering. In referring to the current
Prime Minister he said that the Prime Minister's “one problem at
a time” and “Canada is number one” rhetoric reflected his
personal and political convictions that setting national targets,
exhorting citizens to make special efforts, using his office as a
bully pulpit in outlining serious challenges for citizens to
consider, are all potentially fatal political traps.
While we are listed by the UN as the greatest country in the
world to live, and all Canadians are quite proud of that, and
while the Prime Minister pontificates about how we are the
greatest country in the world, he is using that as a reason for
not pursuing economically visionary policies. Whenever a
politician or a government pursues policies that are visionary or
forward-thinking there is risk. Clearly the previous government
paid a significant price for pursuing policies that were
visionary and politically dangerous.
Free trade, which is lauded now by almost all parties in the
House, and certainly by the opposition Liberals who fought
vociferously against it prior to 1988, was a very controversial
issue in the 1988 election. In fact over half of Canadians voted
against free trade. The majority of Canadians voted for parties
that were opposed to free trade.
That step went far beyond the Minister of Industry's statement
about tinkering and consensus. That step was one of vision and
of leadership. Making the types of structural changes to the
Canadian economy, which have enabled Canadians, toward the end of
the 1990s and now as we have entered the 21st century, to be in a
position where we can potentially take advantage of the
opportunities and face the challenges of the new economy.
1540
Similarly, the GST, against which the Liberals successfully
fought in the 1993 election, is now embraced by the Liberals. In
fact, the Prime Minister on foreign travels claims to have
invented or implemented the GST.
The difficulty with the Minister of Industry's statement
yesterday, that no steps can be taken without the consensus of
Canadians, indicates that this government is so focused on
following the polls that it is failing to lead Canadians.
Canadians deserve better government than that. I would argue
that on the GST there was a consensus. Unfortunately, it was not
a consensus that was positive for my party in 1993.
Mr. John McKay: That is the best part of your speech so
far.
Mr. Scott Brison: One of the Liberal members opposite has
commended me on my oratory today. I appreciate that. It is
tremendously kind.
I thank the Liberals opposite for not changing those excellent
policies of the previous government because, frankly, they have
been the policies that have enabled the current government to
eliminate the deficit, along with the support of the Canadian
taxpayers who have been pummelled under this government's
leadership. It could be said that the government opposite is a
government of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately, its sound
ideas are seldom original and its original ideas are seldom
sound.
We are speaking today to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income
Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act,
1999. This is a collection of tinkering measures that fail to
address some of the significant tax reform issues challenging
Canadians.
Under this government we have seen declining productivity and
investment and, in fact, an exodus of not just Canadian talent,
in terms of the best and brightest young people we have in
Canada, but also an exodus of investment in what is sometimes
called the corporate takeover of Canada. We have seen a huge
loss of Canadian economic sovereignty under this government.
It is important to note that sovereignty is not about economic
symbols. It is about economic performance. While the government
will continually go back to symbolism and try to defend its
record based on particular symbols, it is missing the basic
message or mantra of the new economy which is that individuals,
wherever they live in the world, are prosperous or poor based on
the degree to which their governments create environments for
their citizenry to participate fully in this new challenging
global economy. This government is clearly failing to recognize
the opportunities and challenges of this new economy.
Canadians deserve much better. Canadians deserve a government
with a clearer vision, a government willing to take some risks on
economic policy and forge ahead of where the polls are indicating
the government should be right now and actually do some of the
things that Canadians need to be done to prepare them for well
into this millennium.
Based on the last three budgets, it is clear that the Liberal
government is big on labels. We saw in the 1998 budget that it
was the education budget and 12 months after that budget, over
12,000 Canadian graduates declared bankruptcy.
The 1999 budget was the health care budget. In the year
following that budget, we still see the Canadian health care
system in a shambles and health care reeling in every province in
Canada, not because we have bad provincial governments but
because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility
to defend the Canada Health Act and has not provided the type of
funding necessary for the provinces to maintain the principles of
the Canada Health Act.
The year 2000 budget was the tax cut budget. Before this
budget, Canada had the highest personal income taxes in the G-7.
After this budget Canadians face the highest personal income
taxes in the G-7.
1545
What about corporate taxes? Prior to this budget Canada had the
second highest corporate taxes of the 31 countries in the OECD.
After the tax relief measures of the budget are fully implemented
over a five year period, Canada will have the fourth highest
corporate taxes of the 31 OECD countries. That is assuming that
other OECD countries will not reduce their corporate taxes, when
in fact 27 of the 31 OECD countries are already planning to
reduce their corporate taxes.
While the Liberals pontificate about Canada heading in the right
direction with their tax policies, I remind them that a tortoise
heading in the right direction on the autobahn is still roadkill.
The Liberals' tortoise tax reform is a hindrance for Canada and
is holding Canadians back when we should be unleashing the
Canadian potential not just to compete globally, but to succeed
globally in this new economy.
Under the Liberals we have seen a reduction in our personal
disposable income of about 8%, during a period of time when the
Americans have enjoyed an almost 10% increase in personal
disposable income. I suspect that I have to remind members
opposite that it is impossible, wealth being a relative thing,
for Americans to have become richer while we have been getting
poorer.
This is one of the reasons we are seeing the dollar drop by
approximately eight cents since the election of the government in
1993. The dollar is one of the best indicators of economic
performance. It is like a share value in Canada. It reflects the
confidence not just of Canadians, but of investors from around
the world. Every time the dollar drops, Canadians have a pay
cut. It reduces the standard of living and the purchasing power
of Canadians who increasingly in the globally interconnected
economy can purchase what they want and need from companies and
individuals almost anywhere.
Our productivity growth has been the worst in the G-7 in recent
decades. There has been a secular decline in our productivity
growth rate, particularly relative to the United States. Again,
that needs to be addressed. Broad based visionary and courageous
tax reform and reduction is only one way, but it is a very
important way to address that issue.
I will speak to some specific issues in Bill C-25. We support
the demutualization of life insurance companies. That is a step
in the right direction. It has already been the case in the U.S.
and there is a broad based level of support within the life
insurance community for this. Demutualization stands to benefit
a lot of policyholders. Effectively in some ways it makes them
shareholders in some of these companies. There are some benefits
to that.
In 1999 there was an increase in the basic personal exemption by
$675 to approximately $7,100. That is a baby step in the right
direction. To be taxing Canadians who are making $7,100 is
purely too low a figure. Comparatively in the U.S. one does not
start paying income tax until one's income reaches approximately
the equivalent of $11,000 Canadian. We are supposed to be a
kinder and gentler nation yet with the recent budget, we will be
taxing people who earn only $8,000. The increase is a step in
the right direction, but just a baby step.
Again bracket creep was not eliminated in the 1993 budget.
A lot of these little tiny baby steps on tax reduction were
eliminated by bracket creep in the years since then.
1550
On the issue of the deficit surtax there was an announcement in
the 1999 budget for a reduction in this tax and we supported
that. It should have been done earlier.
The 5% deficit reduction surtax was not touched in the 1999
budget. In the 2000 budget there was a commitment to decrease it
by 1% per year. Of course the government is reticent to reduce
the 5% surtax because it is a surtax on who the government
considers to be high income Canadians. It is part of the
politics of envy the Liberals try to create in Canada and an
attitude of anti-wealth or anti higher income which is a recipe
for failure in Canada.
Canada's highest marginal tax rates are higher than all but two
of our trading partners. Canadians are taxed at the highest
marginal tax rate when they hit an income of $70,000 per year. In
the U.S. one does not hit the top marginal tax rate threshold
until $420,000 Canadian. That says to an MBA graduate or someone
entering the computer industry, software industry or e-commerce
industry who is starting at that pay almost immediately after
university that we do not want them here, that we do not want
their talent or their innovation. Unfortunately when we say that
to them all their potential to build better futures for
themselves and their companies and a better future for a country
will benefit other companies outside of Canada. It will benefit
countries other than Canada if we are not very careful.
In this legislation which has to do with the implementation of
the 1999 budget there has been a bunch of tinkering, a series of
baby steps that do not really address the holistic and systemic
issues facing Canadians. It indicates the anemic approach by a
tired government which Canadians are growing concerned about.
They watch this complacent government and the near toxic levels
of arrogance which emanate from the government benches. They
know they are paying a significant price for a government with no
vision and no courage to lead Canada bravely into the 21st
century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier this day, debate on the motion for the second
reading of Bill C-25 is deemed to be adjourned.
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin just by recalling
for the House a statement that was made by Isaiah Berlin, one of
the great moral philosophers of this century in a lecture that he
gave about 30 years ago. He said that we must be reminded that
the Nazi concentration camps of the second world war offer the
most conclusive justification for the necessity of a universal
moral law.
He then went on to say, and I think it is a pertinent comment for
this debate, that the primary duty of any politics was to avoid
the extremes of human suffering.
1555
Since the second world war there have been people in politics
who have made every effort and given voice to the question of the
extremism that leads to human suffering. The Nuremberg trials
themselves immediately after the war and the development of the
convention on human rights and the genocide convention or the
tribunals that have been established for Rwanda and the Balkans
have all been efforts to establish a new trend of humanitarian
law that begins to set standards for that universal moral
behaviour.
This movement has been an effort to develop a fundamental
principle about the protection of individuals and their rights,
not the protection of nation-states, not the protection of the
interests of the grand powers but the fundamental protection of
the security of individuals and to hold people accountable for
those who commit crimes against individuals.
I am pleased to report that the adoption two years ago of the
statute for the development of the International Criminal Court
was perhaps one of the most substantial and forward looking steps
our generation has ever taken to prepare the world for that new
sense of accountability.
[Translation]
This was why I had the privilege, in December, of introducing
Bill C-19 concerning crimes against humanity.
This bill would implement the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court in Canada and would also strengthen the
legislative groundwork for the prosecution of crimes in Canada.
[English]
It is in this debate and discussion at second reading that we
must bear in mind the vital reasons we need to support the
International Criminal Court and why Canada has taken such a
position of leadership.
We have seen time after time on our television screens, human
suffering and shocking violations of people's rights throughout
the world. Instead of diminishing over time, the scale of human
violence has substantially increased. Perhaps the most stark,
dramatic and horrendous statistic that comes to mind is that 90%
of today's victims in war are civilians, women and children, the
most vulnerable. They are the ones who pay the price. In fact
they are often the targets.
We read in the newspapers about the trials going on in the Hague
and about the deliberate planned violation of women as part of
the war aims during the Bosnia war. This brings to mind the
horror that takes place in this world of ours. Millions of women
and children have suffered torture, rape, expulsion and
extinction. They have been mutilated for no reason other than a
hatred for their tribe, their religion or their ethnic
background.
I recently read the book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow
We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by
Philip Gourevitch. The author went into a school that had been
attacked by the genocidaires, the murderers, during that horrible
period in 1994. He described how he walked in and saw a room
full of mutilated corpses and skeletons of young children and
what had happened to them. The genocidaires had arrived one
morning and had asked who were the Hutu and who were the Tutsi.
The Hutu kids were told to leave and the Tutsi kids were
murdered. He then went on to describe how the international
community ignored that peril and threat. Almost half a million
people were killed for no other reason than who they were and who
they belonged to.
It is so important that we begin to establish the fundamental
principle of accountability. We can no longer tolerate people
hiding behind the walls of national protection, the impunity that
says “I am simply doing my duty” or “I am in a position of
responsibility”. We can no longer accept that as being a basis
for international law. That is why we are debating Bill C-19 at
second reading. Establishing the International Criminal Court is
one way of safeguarding the culture of accountability against the
threat of impunity. That is the basic question we are here to
decide.
It is also a practical imperative. The more deterrents we can
provide to this kind of human violence, to this kind of attack
against individual rights, the more we stop it from happening,
the more it begins to provide a lesson and a warning to those who
would commit crimes in the future. It begins to establish basic
principles.
That is why, in establishing this new culture of individual
accountability, we need new tools and institutions.
1600
The International Criminal Court represents in a sense a gift
from the last century to the new century. It is the first new
international institution in the UN family or community of
institutions that has been established specifically to deal with
the question of international crime. It will begin to hold
deliberately liable those who violate victims and to hold them
personally responsible for those actions. It is a huge step
forward for humankind in developing this kind of institution.
It is true that we have war crimes tribunals working in Rwanda
and in the Balkans but it is an ad hoc approach. It is subject
to the wrangling that takes place in the security council or in
other forums along the way. It sometimes leads to selective
justice and is not universally applied.
The creation of a permanent, independent institution can
overcome these weaknesses. It can build upon those foundations
and because of its permanence it will serve as a more reliable
deterrent to perpetrators of these crimes.
[Translation]
This is why Canadians spoke out so strongly in favour of the
International Criminal Court and supported the important role
played by Canada, which insisted that the court be independent
and effective.
In July 1998, Canada presided over the final negotiations,
during which the international community adopted the Rome
Statute.
[English]
I would like to pay a personal tribute to one of our senior
officials, Master Philippe Kirsch, who was the president of the
Rome meetings and was instrumental, along with many other
officials of our department and a great number of NGOs in the
country and internationally, in providing the momentum and kind
of direction that allowed us to bring this court into being.
The ICC statute now provides a permanent court to try those
accused of the most serious crimes recognized by international
law, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Significantly, and this was a major Canadian initiative in Rome,
the statute contains new provisions responding to crimes against
women and children. For the first time that is now becoming part
of the new basis of international humanitarian law.
Let me deal with one of the critiques we hear sometimes from
right wing commentators and others that somehow this is a threat
to our sovereignty. It is absolutely not the case. The statute
of the court makes very explicit and clear that the first line of
defence is the domestic court system. Those countries that have
a fair and impartial legal system are being asked to use that
system. The international court is only a court of last resort
and within it are built a whole series of safeguards on the
appointment of judges and the thresholds that have to be reached
before it can be triggered.
However it fills the vacuum of those failed states in which the
judicial system no longer exists, is politically biased or simply
cannot function to bring criminals to account. This court will
only take jurisdiction where national judicial systems are either
unwilling or unable to investigate these crimes.
Other safeguards are designed to ensure that the court provides
a fundamental basis but gives the stimulation and the inspiration
for countries themselves to ensure that they bring into law their
own implementing legislation which charges their own judicial
systems for the implementation of criminal acts against humanity
and war crimes.
It is important to say that this has received worldwide
acceptance. Some 120-odd countries have already signed the
treaty. Eight have now ratified it. I want to say with some
pride in the House that the statute we are debating today, the
Crimes Against Humanity Act, is the first major comprehensive
implementing legislation brought forward by any legislature
around the world and will provide a model for all other countries
to determine how it will implement the international court
statute.
The act will create new offences of genocide and crimes against
humanity.
These changes will allow Canada to prosecute those responsible or
to surrender them to the ICC. Similar provisions will be created
to respect serious crimes committed outside Canada. As we know
from a supreme court judgment of a few years ago there has always
been an ambiguity as to the capacity of Canada to apprehend those
who have committed war crimes outside this country.
1605
These new provisions in the act will overcome problems that we
have faced in the past. The legislation will strengthen Canada's
ability to carry out successful prosecutions wherever and
whenever they occur. In addition, new offences would also be
created to protect the administration of justice of the court as
well as the safety of judges, officials and witnesses.
The act will enable Canada to surrender persons sought by the
International Criminal Court for genocide or war crimes. The
person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the court
would not be able to claim immunity from arrest or surrender.
The act will also ensure that those who possess or launder the
proceeds from war crimes can be prosecuted. Money obtained from
forfeited assets and the enforcement of fines will be paid into a
crimes against humanity fund for the benefit of all victims of
these serious war crimes.
I hope the bill we are debating today can very quickly be put
into the standing committee so we can invite the full
participation of all Canadians. Let us have a serious debate,
because this is one of the historic steps forward this country is
taking in implementing a new legal order. We must move forward
so that we can affirm very clearly Canada's commitment to
ensuring that the world's worst criminals do not escape justice.
This is truly a watershed in history, a breaking from the past
in which victims of those crimes were so often ignored. As we
proceed we can also say that with the help of many other like
minded countries and many of the international civil groups that
have been working on it, we are also seeking to obtain the
support of those who did not originally sign on. We are
beginning to broaden the consensus and develop more recruits for
this international court statute.
I can say to members that the degree to which we can affirm our
commitment will stand as a beacon, a signal to the rest of the
world that we mean business and that we are continuing to provide
that kind of leadership. Even though the International Criminal
Court is not yet fully ratified, it has already established new
standards to deal with the question of impunity and
accountability.
Since the adoption of the ICC statute in Rome we witnessed the
indictment of Pinochet and the affirmation that former heads of
state do not necessarily enjoy immunity. It is a new standard
that will begin to act its way through the various councils, not
just in terms of the heads of government or military people but
also the war lords, the heads of organizations that undertake
mass murders in countries like Angola and Sierra Leone. It
begins to apply accountability to all individuals.
That is really the break from the past. We are saying in terms
of our human security agenda that is not a matter of just the
security of the state, as important as that remains. It is also
increasing the security of the individual. To do that we begin
to establish this new principle of accountability and,
furthermore, put in place an institution to make sure it happens.
It is fair to say there has been a groundswell of support. It
is fascinating to me that beginning this week, as we go to the
security council, that the Canadian mission will be debating for
the first time in the council the question of transgressions
against the rights of women in Afghanistan. Following that there
will be a number of initiatives dealing with the protection of
civilians, the use of sanctions, and the whole question of the
application of security council measures dealing with displaced
persons. All of a sudden, even in that implacable centre of
conservatism when it comes to international change, the council
is beginning to shift its point of view.
I hope that we can do our part in the House today. I hope we
can maintain the strong momentum that has been developed to shift
the world's perspective to what we mean by international justice
and accountability. The adoption of the legislation and the
ratification of the statute can affirm that Canadians are
appalled by the breaking of these laws and these crimes and are
committed to ensuring that justice is done.
During the course of my remarks I mentioned the book about
Rwanda written by Philip Gourevitch and how he opened the book by
talking about the horrible violation against young children in a
school in Rwanda. At the end of the book I think he comes to an
appropriate closing which may, while it is still a horrendous
story, leave us with a small sense of hope.
He describes how, when he was leaving Rwanda after completing
the work on his manuscript, he turned on the radio and heard that
once again the same kind of horrendous crime was taking place and
that the genocidaires who had escaped across the border as part
of their refugee movement had come back into Rwanda and were once
again undertaking these violations and crimes.
Murambi, a Catholic girls school in Rwanda, had been attacked by
the genocidaires the day before. They used the same practice of
dividing the students into the Hutu and Tutsi. They said that
the Hutu could leave and the Tutsi must stay. However, this time
there was a difference. The young Hutu women in the Catholic
school said they would not leave, that they would not betray
their friends. They stayed behind. They too were murdered by
the genocidaires.
1610
It is an awful story but within it there is an element of hope
that these courageous young women gave their lives not to betray
their friends and stood in solidarity for spirit and principle.
In effect they expressed what this legislation is all about.
Humanity can stand up to crimes. We can stand up against
violations. In the spirit of those young women in that Catholic
school, I hope the House will endorse the bill.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
speak to Bill C-19 that will fulfil Canada's obligations in the
establishment of the International Criminal Court.
Before I go into the details of the bill, I would like to point
out that this is my first speech as chief foreign affairs critic
for the official opposition. I pay tribute and express
appreciation to the former chief foreign affairs critic for the
official opposition, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
who is now running for leader of this great party.
I also pay tribute and express appreciation to the hon. member
for Red Deer, who was deputy foreign affairs critic for this
party, for a job well done during his duty tenure. He did a
great job. I have learned a lot and continue to learn a lot from
them. I hope they will assist me when I need their help.
There are a few things I would like to mention before I go into
the details of the bill. We understand that no nation stands
alone in the global arena. We have to work with other countries
in assisting and making sure that criminals, those monsters who
have blood on their hands, are held responsible and accountable
for their crimes and that justice is served. This is a very
important justice issue. Criminals must be brought to
accountability.
I listened with interest to the minister's speech on which I
will comment in a moment. Before I do so I draw the attention of
the House to the images of concentrations camps, ethnic wars and
civil wars we have seen on television or have read in the
newspapers. Very few Canadians have had firsthand experience. I
know someone who was watching a documentary on CBC and switched
if off because it was such a horrible experience. Let us imagine
the circumstances and situations faced by individuals, families
and nations torn apart because of those crimes, because of bloody
civil wars.
1615
We know that when crimes are committed against an individual we
feel for that victim. But when crimes are committed against a
mass of people, a huge number of the population, it is difficult
to think about. Crime against a single person is wrong. Crime
against humanity is wrong. Genocide is wrong. Ethnic war is
wrong.
We must do the best we can to play Canada's role. Canada has
played a significant role on the world scene in the past, showing
leadership. I believe there is a need for us to continue to
capture and maintain that position.
I lived in Liberia, a country in west Africa, for about eight
years. Many people who are watching will know that there was a
bloody civil war there in the early nineties. I lived in that
country because I was a university professor, an assistant
professor of management, teaching at the University of Liberia.
I also had business there. I had close contact with youth who
were studying at the university. I know how the people felt when
that bloody civil war broke out.
I have two sons who were born there. Now they are 17 and 14
years old. I am often reminded of those families, who were poor,
who were hard-working, but who somehow managed to make ends meet
at the end of the day.
The civil war was based on the ethnicity of the people. Because
the distribution of assets was wrong in the country, important
positions in the government were given based on ethnicity and
geographical regions that played a significant role. Small
children, as young as eight and ten years, had AK-47s and other
lethal weapons. They were killing people. They were chopping
off hands and killing relatives and neighbours because they
belonged to different ethnic groups.
I wonder about those little children. They were supposed to be
going to school, instead of killing people with lethal weapons.
When we look at pictures we can see that they were not even fully
dressed. They were barefoot. I do not think they ate twice a
day, but they had lethal weapons.
Where was the international community? Why could it not stop
the infiltration or importation of the weapons? Those weapons
were not manufactured in that country, but somehow they got the
weapons to kill people. Why did they do that? Because someone
was leading them. Someone was luring those children to take up
weapons, take drugs and then kill people.
This was a crime against humanity. This was a serious crime.
People were committing crimes not only against the children, but
by using them to kill other people.
Canada should recapture its role and show leadership in the
international arena.
The Canadian Alliance supports the bill in principle. We
believe it is a good initiative, a step forward, but we do not
agree with the contents of the bill, and I will give our reasons.
1620
Our support is conditional. Until the conditions are met we
will be unable to support the bill. Let me give some background
as to why we do not support the bill in its present form.
Our Canadian negotiators on their way to Rome met with the
foreign affairs committee approximately one week before their
departure. Upon cross-examination the officials said in
committee that they did not know what the details of the
agreement might be. They did not know what it might cost. They
did not think that any of the major offending countries would
sign it. They did not think the Americans would sign it, our
neighbours. They could not answer questions about the make-up of
the code at that time. Above all, they would sign the agreement
without knowing all of these things, like this weak, arrogant
government has done in the past in signing the Kyoto agreement,
the Rio convention, the Cairo agreement, the Beijing agreement
and so on; signed without knowing the cost, the details, the
signatories and so on. I cannot understand how the government
could do that. The concept of signing agreements and then having
parliament rubber stamp their implementation is not acceptable.
Let me highlight some of the important reasons we oppose this
bill. The bill has every possibility of implementing another
bureaucratic, non-functional international body. International
agreements should not be signed before parliamentary debate. That
is the purpose of parliament. The hon. members sitting in the
House are the elected representatives of Canadians. They are
representing 30 million Canadians. How can the government sign
an international agreement without hearing members, without
debating the issues or without giving members information about
what will happen? That is how Canadian democracy should not
work. We should not be part of a rubber stamp process. Hon.
members have a significant role to play. They are not mute or
people to be used as a rubber stamp.
The Canadian Alliance will oppose this bill because the bad
countries will not sign such a treaty. Therefore, we will have
liberal democracies around the world trying each other for
genocide and war crimes. Without belligerent countries signing
on this treaty will be meaningless.
Will this allow us to prosecute dictators in the francophonie
who might visit us? Will we be able to arrest them and try them
for war crimes, or will we continue to apply our double standard?
The foreign minister did not answer these questions. Now he is
not here to listen. He left the Chamber.
I question how effective the land mines treaty is because the
offending countries have not signed. The U.S. has not signed the
treaty and Canadians are still using mines to protect their
troops. Land mines made in the basements of Kosovo, Angola and
many other countries are as prevalent as ever. This was a PR job
for the foreign minister, who desperately wants to become
director general of the United Nations.
1625
The foreign minister believes in these world governments, this
concept of the United Nation; however, I do not believe that
Canadians do. We should not support projects that have no cost
or budget projections. An ad hoc tribunal approach would be more
flexible, less expensive and would allow countries closer to the
problem to participate.
Agreeing that there will not be capital punishment for those
monsters who commit war crimes, genocide and crimes against
humanity is hardly an argument to support Bill C-19. I am sure
that if there were a referendum on this issue the huge majority
of Canadians would support capital punishment for those monsters
who have committed crimes against humanity.
Having said that, let me go into further detail, with a little
softer attitude toward the bill. What would the bill do? It
would, through the court, deal with cases of genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes. The bill would give Canada the
domestic legislation to facilitate the prosecution of these
criminals by Canadian courts, whether the alleged offences were
committed outside Canada or inside Canada. The bill would give
Canada the right to have first crack at the investigation,
prosecution and sentencing of such cases at home. We could waive
that right, if we wished, to extradite the accused to the
International Criminal Court.
The bill would also affirm that Canadian law would not bar
prosecution in Canada or extradition to the International
Criminal Court or to any international criminal tribunal
established by resolution of the security council of the United
Nations.
Because our immigration laws are such that anyone can abuse
them, they are like sieves, the back door is wide open and the
front door is comparatively closed, anyone can sneak in.
If an individual suspected of a war crime was living in Canada,
then that individual could stand trial here in Canada, if we so
wished, or before the International Criminal Court. If Canada
undertook an extensive investigation and the individual was found
innocent of any charges, that would satisfy the requirement of
the ICC.
As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Alliance is hesitant to
support the bill. The Canadian Alliance favours the prosecution
of individuals who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity. We are committed to protecting national sovereignty,
which is very important and which could be at stake. Before
supporting the bill we demand that such protections be assured
and that the other conditions I mentioned be met.
The relationship between domestic and international law is not
spelled out in Bill C-19. The proposed amendments to the bill
must be adopted at the committee stage before any support could
be given to the bill. If these conditions are not met, then the
Canadian Alliance must oppose the bill.
Let me mention some of the positive aspects of the bill. There
are many good parts to the bill. It places further emphasis on
guaranteeing the interests of victims. The court will be obliged
to take all appropriate measures to protect the safety,
well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. The
judges and prosecutors will be completely independent. The
suspects and the states concerned will have the right to
challenge the court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of the
case during investigation or at trial.
The bill is one step toward creating an international judicial
system in which any individual, regardless of position, will not
be above the standards of the rule of law.
1630
There is some criticism of the ICC that says that individual
tribunals would be preferable and a superior option to
establishing a permanent ICC. A tribunal would examine one
specific case, render a verdict, and then disband. This could
eliminate the cost of maintaining a permanent body and there
would be no long term bureaucratic body in existence. However,
these types of tribunals have proven to be ineffective in
tracking down criminals and in having the legal authority to
prosecute them.
The establishment of the international criminal court would
bring legitimacy to international justice. By establishing one
court for all war crime cases, much duplication is eliminated,
counterbalancing the cost of the court's permanently.
As I said earlier, the bill is supposed to go to committee,
where the real work should be done. It is critical that Canadian
military and legal experts present testimony at the committee
stage of this bill. That will definitely contribute to the
quality of this bill.
If government members were listening and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs was listening to the concerns of the official opposition,
they will let the committee do the real job, listen to the
official opposition and add some quality and substance to the
bill which will be in Canadians' interests.
We want them to talk about the accountability of soldiers,
officers and superiors in relation to the bill and in the Rome
Statute giving rise to this legislative proposal.
We need to have on record their comments concerning the
provisions of this bill which have been considered and negotiated
at length by Canadian and American military experts at their own
conference. Appearances by Canadian experts at committee should
help to allay the concerns of some Canadians, particularly my
constituents of Surrey Central, regarding certain aspects of this
bill.
Since the Nuremberg trials of 1945, the international community
has been working toward the creation of a permanent international
criminal court. Momentum for the creation of the international
criminal court was invigorated by strong support from the public,
the media and non-government organizations.
After years of negotiations and an intense five week diplomatic
conference with a thorough range of interests, the basis for the
international criminal court was adopted in Rome on July 17,
1998. National judicial systems have failed to satisfactorily
investigate or prosecute such individuals. There is a need for
the measures in this bill.
I also understand, with the limited information the government
has provided to opposition parties, as is usually the case, that
the ICC is not retrospective. It will only study incidents that
happen after the court is established. There will be no backlog,
thereby allowing the court to begin immediate work on cases
brought before it. This will help ensure that justice prevails
quickly yet fairly.
Bill C-19 is retrospective for crimes committed outside of
Canada, since we have always had domestic legislation in this
domain. This legislation will be replaced by Bill C-19. The new
retrospectivity of Bill C-19 is based on the status of
international law at the time and place of the commission of the
offence. This has always been the case in Canadian law.
1635
The bill will allow individual governments to try war criminals
within their own borders. Or, countries will have the means to
transfer alleged criminals to the international criminal court to
stand trial on the international stage.
No longer will heads of states have immunity against
prosecution. They will be subject to the same laws as ordinary
citizens. Crimes such as rape, other serious sexual violence and
forced prostitution may be judged as a war crime and crime
against humanity. Imprisonment and fines will be administered.
However, capital punishment will not be administered.
I will quickly go over the organizational component of the ICC.
The international criminal court statute will come into force
once 60 states have ratified it. It will be seated in the Hague,
Netherlands. The 18 judges of the ICC and the prosecutor are
selected on qualifications of supreme court level and must be
ratified by two-thirds of states parties. Their terms are for
nine years, staggered by one-third, that is, every three years
six new members are appointed and six will leave. They may be
removed by a similar two-thirds vote, if there is a need.
The registrar will be responsible for administration of the ICC.
The rules of procedure and evidence are currently being
negotiated through a series of meetings of a preparatory
commission which includes delegations from signatory states and
other interested states.
The details of precise meanings of terms found in the statute,
evidence and court procedures, administrative structure, that is,
languages, treatment of child witnesses, conditions of
imprisonment, et cetera, are to be concluded in consensus
agreements adjacent to the statute.
Parliament and Canadians need to have the information on these
details once they are fleshed out. As I urged earlier,
parliament should be given the information so that Canadians can
know it is public knowledge.
The assembly of states parties to the court will ratify these
rules of procedure and evidence upon the enactment of the statute
after the 60th ratification comes on board. The assembly of
states parties will meet once a year to provide management
oversight and review the annual audit and budget in an effort to
ensure financial accountability. Financial accountability is
very important for international institutions to run smoothly.
The definitions of genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity are carefully spelled out in the Rome Statute and are
based on existing international law.
I will now go back to the part about the costs. Before going to
Rome, the Canadian representatives or delegates had no idea what
the costs would be. At present there is no set amount to be paid
by Canada, as we learned.
All member states of the ICC will pay a fee for the creation,
operation and management of the ICC. The United Nations will
contribute half of the initial start-up costs and will continue
financially when specific cases are mandated by the Security
Council to the ICC. The remaining costs will be shared equally
by all states parties, no less than 60 and potentially much
higher.
As of February 7, 2000, 94 countries had signed the Rome
Statute. The costs will not kick in until at least 60
signatories have ratified the statutes.
After some digging, the official opposition has found that the
estimated financial obligation for Canada for the ICC, from a
discussion with Mora Johnston in February 2000, revealed that the
total initial contribution for the first to second years of the
set-up period, after 60 ratifications brings the Rome Statute
into effect, would be something like $300,000 to $500,000
Canadian.
That cost will be less than the cost of the fountain installed in
the Prime Minister's riding, which has created neither jobs nor
any justice.
1640
The annual expected contribution once the ICC is up and running
is expected to be $1 million to $2 million Canadian. Canada's
annual contribution to Rwanda and Yugoslavia's war crimes
tribunals in 1998-99, assessed through the United Nations, was
$6.3 million Canada. We can see how the cost operates.
There are some questions relating to the ICC. The permanent
international body may become unaccountable and may override the
sovereignty of a nation's legal and government systems. We did
not get any answer nor did we hear about this in the minister's
speech.
Although the ICC is to be complementary to national courts, it
will investigate and prosecute a crime when the nations with
jurisdiction are unwilling to do so. Here is one example of how
the ICC can overrule the sovereignty of a nation. The ICC has
been structured so that the sovereignty of nations will remain
primordial. It does so by requiring the enactment of domestic
legislation in each ratifying state which gives that sovereign
state both the judicial equipment and the right to prosecute
suspected cases of the crimes domestically.
Bill C-19 is Canada's version of this legislation. We can
choose to waive the sovereign right to prosecute in our own court
system and send the case to the international criminal court.
This right cannot be circumvented unless we are unable or
unwilling to use it, that is, that there is a deliberate
fraudulent attempt to shield a suspect from prosecution, or our
rule of law has completely collapsed and we have no government in
place.
That this assessment could ever be made in a Canadian case is
agreed among Canada's negotiating team and justice department
experts to be simply unthinkable. In order for the unthinkable
to occur, that is, the ICC were to nullify a Canadian
investigation or the prosecution of a war crimes case, the
following process would have to have been followed: First, the
prosecutor must decide that there is a reasonable basis to
question that Canada has deliberately and fraudulently
misinvestigated or misprosecuted allegations with the aim of
shielding a suspected war criminal; second, the prosecutor must
consult with the Canadian government regarding his suspicions and
try to arrive at a negotiated resolution of the discrepancy; and
third, the prosecutor must convince a pretrial chamber of the ICC
that the case is valid.
This stage would require concrete evidence that the accused war
criminal is guilty of the offence and that Canada used a scam
process to shield the accused from prosecution.
Canada could appear in front of the chamber to plead its case at
this stage and could bring the case to a fourth appeals chamber
stage. If the judges of the ICC go stark mad and judge that
Canada is deliberately and fraudulently shielding a war criminal,
this should be obvious to the international community. In this
case, Canada has recourse in the procedure to remove rogue judges
by a vote of two-thirds of states parties, if they agree.
In short, the international criminal court statute and Bill C-19
provide for substantial protection of a state's sovereignty
viable only in blatant cases of judicial dishonesty or
incapacity.
1645
The strict requirements to overturn a sovereign country's
treatment of a case have been negotiated and approved by the
sovereignty maverick, the United States, and signed by the United
Kingdom and France. They are intended specifically to protect
state sovereignty for well behaved states while stopping rogue
states from fraudulently protecting verifiable war criminals from
accountability for their actions. In a way Bill C-19 affords us
more sovereignty than improvised war tribunals.
There are some other problems. The ICC could lead to judicial
activism on a global scale. Global judicial rulings should not
be deemed regressive. It has been argued that a uniform, fair
and equal system to prosecute individuals before the ICC will
eliminate any chance of a kangaroo court.
It is clear that there is very limited room for any judicial
activism in Bill C-19 or the Rome statute, either in terms of
expanding the mandate of the ICC which is restricted to the three
crimes listed or playing with the definition of said crimes which
are very strictly and identically defined in both documents.
Why not continue the common practice of establishing ad hoc
tribunals as cases involving these crimes come up? The 18 judges
and prosecutors remain independent of government interference,
with the exception of the removal clause, the two-thirds of
states parties. The appointments are for nine year terms, as I
mentioned. As shown in these numbers it is less expensive than
setting up and administering individual ad hoc tribunals that
lack the experience and legitimacy to efficiently and effectively
hold criminals accountable.
The ICC not only allows the countries most implicated in a
conflict to participate in the process. It gives them the
judicial equipment and the right to prosecute the war crimes in
their own courts. It gives them mechanisms and international
support to achieve justice.
The ICC bureaucracy would be skeletal at first since it is
purely prospective and does not have a backlog. It would only be
used in cases where countries are unwilling or unable to
prosecute domestically. When not in use, again the bureaucracy
will be skeletal.
It is a one-stop shop for war crimes prosecution with specific
expertise and experience in its limited mandate. It ensures
continuity and consistency of international law. It will be much
more legitimate and effective in bringing war criminals to
justice and setting deterrents for potential war criminals than
ad hoc tribunals.
Let me mention something about our neighbours, the United
States. The U.S. has not yet signed the Rome statute. The Senate
is unlikely to ratify it, given its present political
composition. Some may argue that this makes the court
ineffective. Although the U.S. is not a signatory the Rome
statute can still be applied. The need for international justice
can still be carried out.
There are examples of treaties and alliances that are successful
without American participation. The United States has not
rejected the Rome statute yet and is presently studying the ICC
within the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House.
They are heavily involved in negotiations on the rules of
procedure and evidence at the preparatory commission. This
involvement in the process could lead to their acceptance of the
court.
In conclusion, I think we should participate in negotiations on
the rules of procedure and evidence before they are concluded.
We should participate in deciding the definitions that are being
worked on before the bill is ratified by parliament.
1650
Parliament should participate in serious consultations with
regard to those negotiations. We know that the negotiations are
secret. We want some degree of input, in camera or not, into how
Canadian delegates negotiate the critical rules of procedures and
evidence.
These things need to happen before my constituents of Surrey
Central, Canadians and the Canadian Alliance support the bill.
War criminals must be held responsible and accountable for the
blood on their hands.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party to indicate our strong
support for Bill C-19 and to commend the minister for bringing
forward this historic and landmark legislation.
It is appropriate that today, April 6, we as parliamentarians
should be considering legislation that deals with genocide, war
crimes and crimes against humanity. Today is the sixth
anniversary of the start of the Rwanda genocide, 100 days of
terror which led to the murder of as many as two million people,
Tutsis and moderate Hutus. They were calculatingly and
unmercifully butchered in what was clearly a genocide on April 6,
1994. It is timely that we consider this important legislation
at this time.
I want to note as well that an essential element of this
legislation is to establish what the minister called a culture of
accountability. We strongly support the notion of that culture
of accountability, that those who have blood on their hands,
those who are responsible for these terrible crimes, must be
brought to justice.
It is with a sense of sadness that I remind the House that one
of those who must be held accountable for the genocide in Rwanda
remains within Canada's borders today. Mugesera Léon, who
publicly called for ethnic cleansing and extermination of the
Tutsi people in the period leading up to the Rwanda massacre, is
still in Canada today. Mugesera Léon said in a speech that was
broadcast in November 1992 nationwide on Radio Rwanda:
We will take care ourselves of the massacre of the cockroaches,
the Tutsi. We demand that we make a list of all those people.
What are we waiting for decimate these families? Destroy them.
No matter what you do, do not let them get away.
The author of those words, which were an incitement to genocide,
is in Canada today. He remains unpunished. Canada must not be a
haven for people like Mugesera Léon. Canada must not just deport
this individual. Surely we must extradite Mugesera Léon so that
he can stand trial for his terrible crimes against humanity. My
colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party join with people
from the Rwandan community and many others in appealing to our
government to demonstrate leadership on this fundamentally
important question.
I support the bill. I salute the government not just for
bringing the bill forward. I commend not just our government but
in particular Ambassador Philippe Kirsch who has played such an
extraordinary leadership role in the international community in
bringing the International Criminal Court from a dream to
reality. The statute that created the court came into force on
July 17, 1998, in Rome at a conference which was chaired by
Ambassador Philippe Kirsch.
1655
It has been over 50 years since the United Nations first
recognized the importance of establishing an international
criminal court, an international tribunal to prosecute crimes
such as genocide. In a resolution of 1948 the general assembly
noted that genocide had inflicted great losses on humanity and
pointed out that in order to liberate mankind from such an odious
scourge international co-operation was required. In the early
1950s the United Nations attempted to pull together a statute to
create an international criminal court. It is only today, some
50 years later, that the court has finally become a reality.
Canada can be proud of the role we have played in the
establishment of that court. It is not just of our government. I
want to signal as well the contribution of many NGOs. The
Canadian Network for an International Criminal Court included a
broad cross-section of NGOs. It included many churches. It
included the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic
Development. It included Amnesty International and many other
Canadian NGOs.
Among those I want to pay particular tribute to today is one
gentleman from the World Federalists of Canada, Fergus Watt, who
played such an instrumental role in rallying support for the
International Criminal Court within Canada.
This is a day to celebrate the creation of this important
international tribunal, but it is also a day to reflect on what
might have been and what should be when it comes to genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes.
I have mentioned the history and we know the tragedy of Rwanda,
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of East Timor and of the crimes
against humanity in Chile. Certainly many of us were saddened
that Augusto Pinochet, instead of facing his accusers, the
families of those who disappeared, those who were murdered in
cold blood, in a court of law, has now returned to Chile where
tragically he may never, ever face justice. As my colleague from
Saskatoon has said, that is a shame and a tragedy. Hopefully
under the International Criminal Court there will be no
repetition of the failure to have a reckoning for those kinds of
terrible crimes.
We know that Canada's record with respect to the prosecution of
those responsible for crimes against humanity who are within our
borders is a shameful one. Irving Abella has written eloquently
of our history of slamming the door shut to those who were
attempting to flee the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. His book was
entitled None is too Many. The fact of the matter is that
we have not come to grips with our responsibility to bring these
war criminals to justice. Certainly the passage of time does not
in any way diminish the significance of their crimes.
As I said, the legislation codifies and ratifies our adoption of
the principles of the Rome statute established in the
International Criminal Court. One very important element of that
statute is that there are a number of provisions specifically
addressing the plight of women and children in armed conflict.
The statute recognizes, for the first time, rape, sexual slavery
and other forms of sexual violence as war crimes and as crimes
against humanity. It also recognizes the enlistment or the use
of children under 15 in armed conflicts as a war crime. Those
are very important provisions. I know that Canada fought
particularly hard to ensure that they were included in the
legislation.
We can be proud of our role, but there are inconsistencies in
our approach. Even as we support this legislation, even as the
government introduces this landmark legislation, we are fighting
in another international forum, the ad hoc tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, the international criminal tribunal looking at
war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.
We are fighting its jurisdiction to look at the issue of war
crimes which may have been committed by NATO in the former
Yugoslavia during the very tragic events which occurred in the
spring of 1999 both in Kosovo and in Serbia.
1700
We cannot have it both ways. Our government cannot on the one
hand say that there must be responsibility for crimes against
humanity and war crimes and that it must be universal, yet when
there are attempts made to ensure that those universal principles
apply within the context of the situation, the war and bombings
which took place in the former Yugoslavia, our government cannot
say that that jurisdiction does not apply to us.
Canada is indeed one of the 10 countries that have been cited in
that complaint brought by Professor Michael Mandel of Canada,
among others. I believe we have to take that very seriously.
We look at some of the allegations made about the conduct of
that war. A bridge was bombed by NATO in broad daylight. A nine
year old child on a bicycle was murdered in cold blood, along
with too many others. A train crossing a bridge was hit by NATO
missiles not once but twice. The headquarters of Serbian
television and radio were bombed deliberately, killing innocent
technicians and makeup artists, young men and women. We have to
ask ourselves if those who are responsible for these crimes must
not also face their day in court. I believe that indeed they
must face that reckoning.
We can also look at another context, a context of what many of
us believe is effectively genocidal policies. That is the
context of what is taking place in Iraq today. It is what has
been taking place over the past decade under the imposition of
United Nations sanctions which have resulted in the death of over
500,000 innocent children. This has been well documented by
UNICEF and other international tribunals. It has been eloquently
denounced by the former UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Denis
Halliday, eloquently and passionately denounced by his successor,
Hans von Sponeck, who has announced his resignation.
I had the privilege of meeting with Hans von Sponeck when I
visited Iraq along with a delegation from a group called
Objection de Conscience or Voices of Conscience. They pointed
out the combined impact of the destruction of Iraqi
infrastructure from bombing in the spring of 1991, the ongoing
bombing which is taking place illegally by the U.S. and the
United Kingdom, and the massive starvation of innocent civilians,
children and others, malnutrition used as a weapon of war against
innocent children.
Dr. Sheila Zurbrig of Halifax, one of the world's experts on
this subject, has made it very clear that this is a breach of the
most fundamental international obligations which exist. The
Geneva conventions say that we cannot use malnutrition and
starvation as a weapon of war, yet that is what is happening in
Iraq.
I want to be very clear. This is certainly not suggesting that
we should not be calling Saddam Hussein to account for his crimes
against humanity. We all know of the terrible attacks on the
Kurds, the gassing of Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, but it is
not acceptable that innocent Iraqi people should be victimized in
this way, allegedly in order to attack Saddam Hussein.
Denis Halliday said that we are destroying an entire society. It
is as terrifying and as simple as that.
We call for support for this resolution, this bill before the
House today. At the same time I would appeal to our government
to recognize that we should not be a part of the genocidal
policies in Iraq ourselves.
We should be using our position of leadership as we preside this
month at the security council to call for a de-linking of
military and economic sanctions, for the immediate lifting of
economic sanctions, for an end to the illegal bombing in the
north and the south, for the opening of a Canadian embassy in
Iraq and for regional disarmament in that deeply troubled region.
1705
It is very important that we work toward the day when there will
be truly universal accountability under this International
Criminal Court. It is not good enough, frankly, that the United
States should say that it will not be bound by this statute, that
it arrogates unto itself the power to say no, it will not be a
part of this acknowledgement by the international community that
there must be a tribunal that has jurisdiction over all,
including the United States. It has said no to the International
Criminal Court, no to the land mines convention. We appeal to the
United States to join with Canada in signing and ratifying this
treaty.
The reality is, as former United States under secretary of state
David Newson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor, “If
the U.S. will not accept its obligations to the citizens of other
lands, its own citizens will be less safe abroad”. I think it
is important that we recognize and understand that.
Today we call on the Government of Canada to continue its
important and valuable work in seeking the ratification of this
treaty by other countries as well. So far I believe seven
countries have ratified this treaty. Sixty are needed before it
comes into force. Let us hope that we can get those 60 before
December 2000 and that we can get those ratifications without any
opting out declarations.
Let us celebrate the fact that the Rome Statute that establishes
the International Criminal Court did not include the death
penalty. I heard with sadness my colleague from the Reform
Party, whom I congratulate on his recent naming as foreign
affairs spokesperson for that party, lament the fact that this
treaty did not include the death penalty. Surely we have moved
beyond that to the point that we recognize that the death penalty
is a barbarism that should not be included in any statute and
which should be abolished throughout the world. I hope we
continue to take a strong position on that.
Finally, let me say that I welcome the minister's suggestion
that there be a full study of the bill by the committee so that
those who do have concerns about the bill can be heard. I know
that the Ukrainian Canadian Congress for example has written to
members of the foreign affairs committee voicing concerns about
the legislation. It is important that we invite them to be heard
at the committee and that their concerns be listened to.
David Matas speaking on behalf of Amnesty International has
raised concerns about some elements of the legislation while
strongly supporting it. There are issues such as the rights of
the defendant in the statute; the question of the mental elements
of crime; the importance of clear definitions of crime both
inside and outside Canada; the fact that individual criminal
responsibility should be entrenched in the law; and that section
3.77 of the criminal code should be kept to ensure that people
with connections to crime can also be convicted, that those who
are directly involved and those who are intimately connected with
crimes should accept their full responsibility.
Those are our concerns. As I have said, we support the bill. I
am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in supporting the
bill.
In closing, I want to remind the House of the words of José
Ayala-Lasso, the former United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights. He said that a person stands a better chance of
being tried and judged for killing one human being than for
killing 100,000.
That has been the truth too long on our planet. Let us hope
that the adoption of the bill will be an important step forward
by Canada on the road to universal jurisdiction, on the road to
full responsibility and hopefully on the road to one day
eliminating all crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and
war crimes.
1710
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP caucus colleague from
Burnaby—Douglas for his wise and articulate remarks today. In
the circles in which I circulate he is respected for the work
that he does in this and other areas.
I know that he is in touch with groups widely and often holds
table meetings in the mornings with different groups to talk
about issues. It is on that score I would like to ask him the
following question. We are often told that Canadians and many
other people have turned inward as we have suffered from a
recession throughout the 1990s. We are told that people are less
interested in international issues and affairs than they may have
been in some golden age.
I would like to know, on the basis of the discussions he has had
with Canadians and with groups particularly, if he senses that
there is widespread or at least a significant interest in this
bill and these issues. For example, I read a very good brief
about Iraq from a church group which included the Mennonite
Central Committee. It would seem to me there is an interest
there. Could he enlighten us about what he sees as widespread or
otherwise interest by Canadians in this important issue?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague for his question. I certainly want to thank him for
the role he plays in international affairs as our spokesperson on
development issues. He certainly has a longstanding record in
this area in working with a number of groups including, I
believe, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops over the
years on many of these issues.
I am very hopeful about the response of Canadians on these
issues. Sometimes we hear that Canadians do not care what is
going on outside our borders. The fact of the matter is more and
more young people particularly are getting involved and want to
make a difference.
Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking at the University of
Toronto on the issue of Iraq and the impact of sanctions on Iraq.
It was very heartening to see the large number of young people
who were present and who wanted to get involved.
People are working in solidarity with movements, trying to
promote human rights in many different parts of the world.
Whether it is in Burma or Colombia, working on behalf of the
Kurds or in solidarity with Tibet, and in many other parts of the
world, there is a growing awareness of the importance of this.
Sadly it is not reflected so much in the media, but I am
heartened by the extent to which Canadians do recognize that we
are not just citizens of our local communities and citizens of
Canada, but we are truly also citizens of the world.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
wondering if my colleague could elaborate on sanctions as a war
crime. The UN sanctions against Iraq have indeed turned into a
siege whereby citizens are starved. Where do we cross the line
in turning these supposedly helpful implements into in truth
weapons of war, of starvation?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this is a profoundly
important question. I know that Canada is putting on the agenda
of the security council this month the issue of the impact of
sanctions. I am hopeful that perhaps arising from that study we
can look at the fact that in many respects sanctions are having a
devastating impact on people who are not in any way responsible
for the terrible actions of those against whom they are allegedly
directed. For example, the sanctions on the former Yugoslavia
are hurting innocent people but in no way are diminishing the
capacity of Milosevic. That is why many of us have appealed for
the government to join in calling for a lifting of those
sanctions.
The sanctions in Iraq are the most glaring example of that.
We have also seen the impact of the blockade on Cuba and its
people and the impact of the denial of a blockade. It is an
American blockade in this case. It is not an international
blockade. In fact it is an illegal blockade which has been
condemned by the United Nations.
We have to start recognizing that these tools are blunt tools
which hurt innocent people.
1715
I hope that the committee which is studying this bill will have
an opportunity to do that. I know that the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, of which I have the
privilege of being a member, will also be tabling reports, both
on Iraq and on Kosovo, and will be addressing these very serious
issues of the impact of sanctions on innocent human beings.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, in our discussions earlier
today we agreed by way of co-operation among the parties to the
request made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas that other
members of the New Democratic Party would have an opportunity to
speak when this matter again comes before the House at a later
date.
Therefore, I would ask that you seek the consent of the House to
see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that we
see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The House resumed from February 21 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today
calls on the government to convene a meeting of like-minded
nations in order to develop a multilateral plan of action to
reform international organizations in order to encourage them to
play a more effective role in the prevention of conflict.
During the earlier debate on this motion, the hon. member spoke
about the importance of strengthening the ability of
international organizations to prevent conflict. He presented a
number of ideas, such as creating an early warning centre at the
Royal Roads Military College in Victoria, the Norman Paterson
School of International Affairs in Ottawa, or the International
Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal.
Another idea was the formation of a diplomatic rapid reaction
force.
The hon. member also spoke about the problem of war economies in
conflict zones, particularly the present situation in Angola,
and the need to address the problem of the destabilizing effect
of the accumulation of small arms.
These ideas are laudable and they reflect Canada's concern for
the affected populations. The fact is that Canada is already
working actively to equip the international community with the
right tools to prevent and, if necessary, manage conflict.
I would like to speak about some of the initiatives already
under way, to show that a new process aimed at increasing the
number of means of conflict prevention available to the
international community would really not be useful at this time.
There are several early warning mechanisms already in place to
give the international community notice of potential violent
conflicts. Canada has supported international efforts aimed at
bolstering the international community's early warning capacity.
For example, Canada has contributed $500,000 to the training of
UN personnel, through CIDA's peacebuilding fund.
1720
A course on early warning and conflict prevention is given at
the United Nations Staff College. UN staff involved in this
field learn how to interpret available data.
We have also provided assistance to regional organizations such
as the Organization of African Unity, or OAU, in order to improve
its information-gathering capacity. Canada will continue to
provide support to enhance the capacity of existing organizations
and systems.
In order to prevent a conflict from breaking out, early warning
must be followed up with early intervention. Unfortunately, the
creation of additional early warning centres will not solve the
problem of divergent approaches to conflict prevention. These
differences sometimes make it hard to mobilize political will,
and make the process of reaching a decision on where the rapid
intervention will be focussed a painstaking and time consuming
one.
Before determining where early intervention will take place, the
states need to reach agreement on what constitutes legitimate
objectives for preventive actions by neighbouring states and on
the nature of such actions.
Experience has taught us that there will be no sudden
improvement in the capacity to intervene in response to an early
warning; instead, it will be gradually enhanced through the
creation and reinforcement of international humanitarian
standards.
The role played by diplomats in prevention and conflict
resolution is undeniably important. Canada supports the
appointment of special representatives and other envoys by the UN
Secretary General, and is very pleased to see such appointments
made.
These representatives can play a significant role in preventing
conflict and in securing peace.
In July 1998, Canada co-sponsored a high level seminar to improve
the effectiveness of the secretary general's envoys. Special
representatives, past and present, met to examine and develop
strategic options for their role and responsibilities.
More recently, the secretary general and the security council
expressed their grave concern to Indonesian authorities over the
violence that broke out following the independence vote in East
Timor. We will recall how closely we followed these unfortunate
developments in this part of the world.
A security council mission travelled to Jakarta and Dili in
September.
By acting in co-operation with the secretary general, it
succeeded, and I would say succeeded well, in obtaining
Indonesia's agreement to the sending of a multinational force to
restore peace and security in the region and to facilitate
humanitarian assistance operations.
We will continue to encourage the use of special representatives
and missions like the one to East Timor, and we believe this
function of envoy incorporates the member's proposal to
establish a rapid diplomat intervention force.
Naturally, like the hon. member, the government is concerned
about the development of war economies, which feed violent
conflict. We are especially concerned by the endless conflict
in Angola, fed by the illicit diamond trade.
In 1993, the security council established sanctions with the aim
of stopping the UNITA rebel troops from funding its military
operations in Angola. The aim of these sanctions is to prevent
UNITA from attaining its objectives through military means by
targeting the illicit diamond trade and other sources of
financial support for the UNITA war.
This means reducing deliveries of arms to UNITA and its access
to petroleum products. It also means limiting the opportunities
of the UNITA leaders to travel and be represented abroad.
Canada currently chairs the security council's committee
responsible for implementing the sanctions against UNITA.
Council members are united in their commitment to make current
sanctions a more effective tool to restrict UNITA's ability to
engage in war activities.
1725
In so doing, we hope to foster the conditions necessary to
resume negotiations and thus facilitate a lasting resolution of
this civil war, which has been raging for 20 years, has claimed
the lives of more than one million people and resulted in an
even greater number of people being displaced, of course, and
injured.
In addition to these energetic measures to develop public
awareness, Canada also worked to strengthen the sanctions.
Ambassador Fowler, who chairs the security council's Angola
sanction committee, made visits to the region and to Europe to
promote a stricter implementation of the sanctions.
A task force of ten was asked to recommend practical measures to
improve the implementation of the sanctions and their
compliance. The task force submitted its recommendations to the
council on March 15, 2000.
Canada is not alone in looking for ways to strengthen the
sanctions against UNITA. The European Union, the OAU and other
organizations have adopted resolutions and made other public
statements to promote a strict application of the sanctions.
The leading diamond mining company, De Beers, and other
companies have taken measures to ensure full compliance—and I
would ask the House to please listen—with the sanctions.
Moreover, the international association of diamond makers
promised to support the sanctions by pushing for zero tolerance
for any violation of the sanctions within the industry.
I could go on and on, but I want to stress the fact that we sit
on the security council—we will be chairing it—, Canada is a
member of the G-8, and most G-8 members also sit on the security
council, and we have great opportunities to intervene
effectively to prevent conflicts.
But the best way for Canada to strengthen the international
community's ability in that respect is to support existing
initiatives. We intend to participate very actively.
Engaging in another process at this point would not be very
useful.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
speak in support of Motion No. 30 introduced by my colleague, our
former foreign affairs critic, the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to move an amendment to
the motion as follows:
That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after
“should” with the following:
“continue and intensify efforts with other nations to further
develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the
capacity of international organizations (e.g. International
Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) to enable them to
identify the precusors to conflict and improve their conflict
prevention capabilities”.
1730
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. The
question is on the amendment.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate about
reforming the international organizations.
I will use my time to talk about some of the reforms that I
think are important with respect to the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations but also with respect
to the WTO, which is an increasingly important international
organization that has been left out of the member's motion.
First, with respect to the International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank, this motion is particularly timely in the sense that
in a few weeks from now there will be a meeting of the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund in Washington. I, and I am
sure other members of parliament, are aware that a great many
Canadians are planning to visit Washington in the same way that a
great many Canadians paid a visit to Seattle at the end of
November and early December. They are going to pay a visit to
Washington and to the meeting of the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank in order to signify their displeasure,
dissatisfaction and objection to the way in which the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank now operates, in
the same way as they did with the World Trade Organization.
There is a growing feeling among a great many Canadians, and for
that matter thinking people and democrats all around the world,
that these international organizations are not serving the global
community well, that they do need to be reformed and that they
need to be made more democratic and more representative. They
need to be restructured in such a way that they are more
sensitive to the needs of all peoples of the world and not just
the multinational corporations whose ideology and whose world
view tends to infuse and take over these organizations.
I am not sure if that is what the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had in mind when he was calling for the
reform of these organizations but it is certainly what I have in
mind when I talk about the reform of these organizations, and
what a lot of other Canadians have in mind when they talk about
the reform of these organizations.
When I think about the World Bank, I am reminded of the
restructuring programs that were imposed on so many third world
countries by the World Bank. These restructuring programs were
not restructuring programs. They were a cover for the World Bank
imposing a particular ideology on these third world countries.
What it often meant was that these countries had to cut back on
what little social services and health care they had in their
countries.
I remember, going back to when the Conservatives were in power,
the person who later became a Liberal Cabinet minister was the
head of CIDA at that time, Mr. Massé.
I remember confronting him in committee at that time with the
fact this restructuring program of the World Bank and the IMF was
causing the death of hundreds of thousands of children who were
being cut off from basic social services in order to satisfy the
ideology of the banks with respect to debt repayment.
1735
This sort of thing continues to this very day. When push comes
to shove, capital must be protected. It really does not matter
as long as it is indirect. It really does not matter how many
people have to die, particularly children and the powerless, in
order to protect the rights of capital and the rights of people
who have lent money and want their interest and want it all.
They had a name for this in the Bible. They used to call it
usury. It used to be condemned and thought of as something that
was morally reprehensible. We now have a whole financial system
that depends on it, that thrives on it.
To the extent that the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund have no critical perspective on this at all, they not only
need to be reformed, their basic principles need to be
re-thought, particularly in this year which is the year of the
jubilee being celebrated by the churches, calling upon all
Canadians and their governments in the year 2000 to extend
significant debt relief to the poorest countries of the world so
that these countries have a chance to crawl out of the hole that
they are in. Oftentimes the hole has been created by governments
and regimes that are long gone, holes that have been created by
fluctuations and depressions in commodity prices that are long
gone, but the people of these countries are indentured to this
debt forever and ever because we cannot seem to break the hold of
the ideology that the IMF and the World Bank represent to the
world.
I only have limited time and I would not want to spend all my
time on the IMF and the World Bank.
The motion also mentions the United Nations. In that context, I
think we would all like to see a strengthening of the United
Nations. We would all like to see it perhaps in Canada but not
everyone in the world would like to see it.
One of the things that bothered me not so long ago, when I was
at a NATO north Atlantic parliamentary assembly meeting, was the
way in which Americans kept talking about how regrettable it was
that NATO had to do all these things because the United Nations
was too weak. This is coming from the same country that does
not pay its dues to the United Nations. No wonder the United
Nations is weak, when the most powerful country in the world will
not pay its dues to the United Nations. They cannot have it both
ways. They cannot lament the weakness of the United Nations and
say “We are just going to have NATO do that because the UN is so
weak” and, at the same time, be directly contributing to its
weakness through their own refusal to pay their dues to that very
organization.
That is something that I think needs to be said when we are
talking about UN reform. One could make a whole speech about UN
reform.
Of course when it comes to the World Trade Organization, this is
an organization that also needs to be seriously reformed, if not
completely abolished. We need to start from scratch with an
organization that is not committed to entrenching the rights of
the powerful while leaving the rights of the powerless to be
dealt with another day, which is exactly what we have in the
current WTO.
1740
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
wish to congratulate the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on his
initiative.
Organizing a meeting of like-minded organizations and nations in
order to reform international organizations may seem a bit
utopian. Someone famous once said that our achievements are
always rooted in utopian dreams.
I encourage the Canadian Alliance member to pursue his efforts
in this direction. I am sure that important initiatives often
begin with initiatives that do not always seem momentous. A way
must be found to reform all these international organizations.
I therefore think it important that the motion by the Canadian
Alliance member be given very serious consideration. I hope
that the government will pay close attention and that it will do
everything possible to promote the reform of international
organizations.
I also wish to pay tribute to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska,
who is working hard on all issues having to do with
intergovernmental affairs, as well as international trade.
These issues are not always very obvious.
I feel that Motion M-30 is modest, but extremely important for
the future of all inhabitants of this planet. It is of the
utmost importance for us as Canadians. Even if we are
considered a developed nation, the motion, with its ultimate
goal of getting international organizations to devote a bit more
of their energy to the service of humankind and all inhabitants
of this earth, deserves to be treated seriously and with
respect.
Although we belong to different political parties and are often
ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum, I think we must
congratulate the member on his initiative.
Internationally, we must consider all the criticism that has
accompanied meetings of international organizations such as the
International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization.
When these organizations meet, there are many demonstrations.
Ordinary people, people in our communities realize that
globalization, which is really being pushed by private
interests, does not always fully respect the citizens of the
world.
Corporate interests—just think of international mergers and
ongoing negotiations—are not always consistent with the best
interests of our fellow citizens, far from it.
It is obvious that the countries involved in negotiations within
international organizations chose those that best serve their
interests. For free trade agreements, the Americans and the
Canadians may turn to the World Trade Organization if they feel
they have a better chance of getting something out of that
organization.
They may also call on the dispute settlement panel created when
the free trade agreement was signed, a treaty regarding which
the Conservative government played an extremely active role. The
FTA promoted trade, with the result that our exports to the U.S.
market increased from $90 billion to $250 billion in just a few
years.
In the end, these changes did not prevent poverty from
increasing world-wide. I think the hon. member's motion suggests
that we look into these issues. Wealth is more and more
concentrated in the hands of a corporate minority and in the
hands of a minority in each of our respective countries.
1745
These changes did not prevent poverty from becoming more
prevalent here in Canada. If I raise the issue of poverty time
and time again, it is because poverty, particularly among
children, has increased by about 50% since 1993. I have asked
the Minister of Finance to take a close look at the issue of
guaranteed minimum income. There are 37 federal-provincial
programs, yet the problem of poverty keeps growing.
The Quebec government is beginning to take an interest in the
issue of guaranteed minimum income, which will be on the agenda
at the Parti Quebecois convention, in May. A number of European
countries are also taking an interest in that option.
That is why, in order to halt the rise in poverty resulting from
globalization and internationalization, which are inescapable,
the best way of ensuring that the globalization of trade is
achieved a bit more humanely is to have national measures that
allow us to help those in the greatest need.
It is unbelievable that poverty has risen 50% since 1993 and
that the government continues to think that small, stopgap
measures will eliminate the problem. Commercially, there is an
enormous amount of compensation due nationally if we are to
assume our responsibilities and do everything possible to stop
poverty from growing at the frightening pace it has so far.
One of the organizations that is often mentioned is the United
Nations. There are many who question its existence. First, from a
budgetary point of view, it has some work to do; second, when
there are major conflicts, very often, the United Nations are
called on thanks to the leadership exercised by one political
figure.
I recall former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney—to whom I pay
tribute—being instrumental in ensuring that the Gulf War be
conducted under the aegis of the United Nations, thanks to his
relationship with members of NATO in particular. He managed to
have the UN put in charge of the operations. I think this is an
important step.
It is important that international organizations be reformed.
We cannot continue to soft-pedal our efforts to have all
countries assume their responsibilities in connection with such
things as the environment.
Everybody is concerned about what is happening in that area. We
cannot think that we will be able to control climate
deterioration through ad hoc measures in each country. I am sure
our own organizations should review their practices.
I am thinking about the Canadian International Development
Agency, whose mandate it is to help the poorest countries. What
we hear about it is not always nice. Perhaps we should make a
greater use of NGOs. For each dollar invested in poor countries,
65 cents find their way back here one way or another. We have
been told that wells have been dug, but that there is no water.
This is bad management.
I think the motion brought forward by our colleague from the
Canadian Alliance deserves serious consideration. I hope this
simple motion will bring all parliamentarians, particularly on
the government side, to greater awareness of international
organizations and the need for reform that will make these
organizations more effective for every human being, be it in
relation to international trade, environmental issues or finding
a better way of resolving armed conflicts. I think we must give
that very serious consideration.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a
few words on this motion, because we have a tendency to look down
on private member's motions. I think we must give this motion all
the consideration it deserves. I am sure that, if we want to live
in a better world in the decades to come, all these organizations
need to be better co-ordinated and restructured to meet real
targets.
1750
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to Motion No. 130.
The 20th century was host to two of the most costly wars mankind
has ever known in terms of lives lost and material resources
consumed. In the aftermath of the second world war, the
international community banded together to form the United
Nations. One of the prime roles of the UN was to engage in the
new concept of conflict prevention. By providing the
international community with a forum for debate, international
players could air and resolve their differences without resorting
to conflict.
During the last 50 years the United Nations has largely failed
as an institution which could engage in successful conflict
prevention. With the start of the cold war and the nuclear arms
race the international community was divided between the east and
west, both supporting a number of client states which engaged in
a number of small and medium size conflicts.
With the collapse of this bipolar world over a decade ago, the
number of international conflicts has actually grown with the
gulf war and the recent conflict in the Balkans as two conflicts
in which Canada has been actively and heavily engaged.
The international community's reaction to these conflicts has
been slow and focused on conflict management, post-conflict
resolution and reconstruction. This has not only proved costly
in material terms but has created a major burden for the armed
forces of mid-size powers like Canada.
The Liberal government has spent the last seven years slashing
defence spending and cutting personnel and hardware from the
Canadian armed forces. Despite cutting defence spending by 23%
and over 13,000 personnel since 1993, Canada has more troops
abroad than at any time since the Korean war 50 years ago.
Despite having a mandate to monitor and defend Canadian territory
and the territories of our allies, more and more of the resources
of the Canadian armed forces are being dedicated to peacekeeping.
Figures from the Department of National Defence claim that
direct peacekeeping duties cost the department $1.45 billion
during the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Almost $1 billion is forecast
to be spent next year on peacekeeping. That is over 10% of the
armed forces budget which has shrunk so small that urgent
acquisitions of equipment such as the replacement for the Sea
King helicopter has been postponed a decade and counting.
The cost of peacekeeping has more than doubled from the $465
million spent by DND during the 1997-98 fiscal year. The status
quo has become unsustainable. With the number of conflicts
around the world escalating and Canada's defence budget
dwindling, the international community must finally act and move
from a focus on conflict management and post-war reconstruction
to one of conflict prevention. International financial
institutions must play a role if we are to succeed, with the
World Bank and the international monetary fund being two key
examples.
On the other hand, however, soft power initiatives must be
accompanied by hard power military assets because without hard
power there will be little incentive for some nations to respond
to purely economic levers.
This is where Canada is letting down the international
community. The problem is that the idea of influencing other
nations using soft power initiatives does not always work. Look
how influential our Minister of Foreign Affairs was with the
military junta which took over Pakistan recently.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs really think that Saddam
Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic will really mend their ways? Both
have already experienced punitive economic blockades with little
effect on their inherent aggressiveness. Ironically, even the
creator of the soft power concept, Joseph Nye, understood that
soft power meant absolutely nothing without hard power to back it
up.
As mentioned, the Liberal government has slashed defence
spending by a whopping 23% from $11.28 billion to a low of just
$9 billion last year.
1755
The modest defence spending increase in this year's budget
barely maintains the status quo with only $60 million in
additional funding to purchase badly needed equipment. This has
literally gutted the Canadian armed forces.
I believe many of my Liberal colleagues on the defence committee
would agree with what I am saying here today. Both the Liberal
members and the Canadian Alliance members supported the defence
committee's first report to the House of Commons calling for
significant increases in defence spending as a percentage of GDP
over the next five years.
The finance committee has also realized the urgency of this
situation and recommended a five year budget increase for
national defence. The result of the massive cuts to defence
spending was predictable. Personnel levels had to be cut to
60,000, far below that recommended by the special joint committee
of 1994 and a dramatic drop from the 87,000 troops we had in
1987.
According to the Conference of Defence Associations which
appeared before the defence committee last December, the number
has even fallen below the 60,000 level to 57,000 because national
defence cannot afford to replace those who have left the Canadian
forces.
As we know, manpower is an essential aspect of combat
capability. The army is particularly hard hit with personnel at
only 65% of what is needed. The Conference of Defence
Associations told the defence committee that the Canadian armed
forces would be hard pressed to fulfil the Liberal government's
1994 white paper commitment to build a combat capable brigade
size force. This is important because the 1994 defence white
paper is the government's policy on national defence and the
government cannot ensure that the commitment it made to Canadians
can be enforced.
The Conference of Defence Association argued the Canadian army
was really only combat capable at the company level, which is a
group of about 150 troops. Here is Canada, a nation of 30
million people, only capable of fielding company size combat
capable forces. We have seen how stretched our two battalions
are in Kosovo and Bosnia. We have to bring home our battalion of
1,300 troops from Kosovo because we cannot effectively sustain
two battalions in the region.
The army is getting so desperate that recently Colonel Howie
Marsh advised the government, contrary to the government's own
defence policy, to cut the army to 10,000 from the current 20,000
and make up the difference using high technology. What a
ludicrous argument. The idea is unworkable.
The Conference of Defence Association stated to the defence
committee that our army at 20,000 was far too small. High
technology, as crucial as it is, will not make up for the role
played by highly trained individuals. Soldiers on the ground are
what the army needs. It is just as important as the massive
deterioration and rust out of our Canadian forces equipment.
Last year the auditor general determined that equipment
requirements of the Canadian forces exceeded the planned budget
by $4.5 billion. With a capital budget increase of only $60
million, Canadians are wondering how DND will replace the aging
Sea King helicopters and enter the revolution of military
affairs, and how our armed forces with the latest technology will
be able to put up any combat capability whatsoever.
In conclusion, preventing conflict before it begins must become
an international priority. I congratulate my colleague from
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for bringing to the House such an
innovative and worthwhile international plan of action. He has
my support, and I suspect he should have the support of all
members of the House on this initiative.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to
the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Surrey Central. We
on this side of the House look most favourably on this hon.
member's amendment.
There is no doubt whatsoever that economic inequalities and
crises lie behind the great majority of the conflicts taking
place just about everywhere in the world at this time.
1800
It is not mere happenstance that the Bretton Woods
institutions—the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank—came into being in the wake of the war.
Their founders realized in 1944 that solid economic foundations
were needed if there was to be any solid peace.
The International Monetary Fund was created in order to prevent
balance of payment crises by encouraging the harmonious operation
of the international monetary system and world trade and
supporting high levels of sustainable economic growth.
Similarly, the World Bank was given the task of reducing poverty
and inequality by raising standards of living and promoting
sustainable development in developing countries.
While the architects of Bretton Woods could not foresee the
changes that would come about, the institutions they designed
have nevertheless proven surprisingly adaptable to a changing
economic environment.
These changes continue today. The recent wave of financial
crises in the emerging markets is forcing the two institutions to
reassess their respective policies and roles in order to reduce
the risk and the impact of future crises and to intensify the
fight against poverty and inequality.
Through the G-7, the G-20 and its membership in the two
institutions, Canada contributes to the achievement of these
objectives along with like-minded nations.
For example, the G-20, chaired by Canada's Minister of Finance,
was set up in the fall of 1999 to give countries whose size or
strategic importance confers on them an especially crucial role
in the world economy greater voice in discussion on international
financial matters.
The G-20 comprises the ministers of finance and governors of the
central banks of 19 industrialized countries and emerging
economies, representatives of the European Union, the central
European bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
and their policy committees.
The objective of the G-20 is to promote co-operation in order to
achieve stable and lasting international economic growth for
everyone's benefit.
[English]
The IMF has taken a number of important steps to better foresee,
prevent and respond to crises of the type that have recently
affected a number of emerging market countries. For example, in
its surveillance activities the IMF is paying greater attention
to issues such as external debt and liquidity management and the
appropriateness of exchange rate regimes. The IMF has a key role
to play in encouraging best practices and monitoring compliance
in these areas.
The IMF is also contributing to the development of international
codes and standards, particularly in the financial sector, and
developing frameworks for monitoring and encouraging compliance
through financial sector stability assessments and reports on the
observance of standards and codes. These will help identify and
address vulnerabilities in a country's financial and economic
systems.
The IMF has also developed two new financing facilities to help
countries and the international community respond to large scale
financial crises: the supplemental reserve facility, which would
be available to countries in crisis situations that could spill
over to other countries, and contingent credit lines, which would
be a precautionary line of defence that would be available to
countries which are pursuing sound policies but are nonetheless
vulnerable to contagion.
IMF programs and the sorts of adjustments they call for can only
succeed if the poor and the most vulnerable in society are
protected.
The IMF is therefore placing a higher priority on the social
aspects of adjustments.
1805
In conjunction with the enhanced debt reduction scheme for
heavily indebted poor countries and as part of its contribution
to the global anti-poverty effort, the IMF replaced its
concessional facility, the enhanced structural adjustment
facility, with the more focused poverty reduction and growth
facility. As a consequence, direct anti-poverty measures will
play a central role in programs supported by the IMF, the World
Bank and other lenders.
The World Bank, which has recently intensified its fight against
poverty, is also helping countries to eliminate some of the root
causes of war and conflict. In this respect the bank has
proposed that country-specific poverty frameworks should be
developed by national authorities in broad consultation with the
private sector, NGOs, academics and other civil society
organizations.
The key principles of the underlying framework are that poverty
reduction strategies should be country-driven, oriented to
achieving concrete results in terms of poverty reduction,
comprehensive in looking at cross-sectoral determinants of
poverty outcomes, and provide the context for action by various
developing partners.
The wider involvement of stakeholders may lead to more open
discussions on the causes of poverty, such as socio-economic
inequalities, corruption and poor governance. It is hoped that
such discussions may help bridge the differences between various
groups that are divided along ethnic, religious and political
grounds.
The bank also has a long history in post-conflict assistance.
Indeed, it was established to support the reconstruction of
Europe after World War II. Since then the bank has assisted
countries all over the world in their post-conflict
reconstruction efforts. More recently the bank has played a key
role in co-ordinating international aid to Kosovo, Bosnia, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the West Bank and Gaza.
In recent years operations in countries emerging from war have
become a considerable proportion of the bank's portfolio.
Excluding India and China, nearly a quarter of the International
Development Association's—the bank's concessional lending
facility—support is going to countries which have undergone or
are emerging from conflict.
In the past much of the bank's post-conflict reconstruction work
was concentrated on rebuilding physical infrastructure. However,
the bank has increasingly broadened its focus to address wider
needs in rebuilding social infrastructure, reconstructing
institutional capacity and putting in place key economic reforms.
In general, the bank's support is designated to facilitate a
country's transition from conflict to peace.
The bank has also been involved in unique post-conflict
elements, including de-mining, demobilization and reintegration of
ex-combatants, and reintegration of displaced populations. For
instance, the bank has supported demobilization and reintegration
of ex-combatants in countries such as Cambodia, Chad, Mozambique
and Uganda, and reintegration of displaced populations in
Azerbaijan, Liberia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. It has been
involved in post-conflict community development programs in
Angola, Cambodia and Rwanda, and de-mining programs in Bosnia and
Croatia.
I have much more to say, but I see that my time has
expired.
1810
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion submitted initially
by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and amended by the
member for Surrey Central. To refresh everyone's memory, I will
read the amendment:
—should continue and intensify efforts with other nations to
develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the
capacity of international organizations (e.g. International
Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations) to enable them to
identify the precursors to conflict and improve their conflict
prevention capabilities.
I want to reflect on the comments of the mover of the motion
about the road map to conflict prevention. I will reiterate the
three main points and elaborate a bit on them.
The first was to establish an early warning centre, a spot
somewhere in the world where information could be gathered and
analyzed and then a conclusion reached. He suggested a spot in
Canada.
This would lead to the second point, the need to have a series
of responses. Those responses would be integrated and involve
diplomatic, economic and military initiatives.
The third point the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca raised on
this road map to conflict prevention was the economic issues. The
economic issues involved the IMF, the World Bank and multilateral
foreign aid agreements. They would be co-ordinated in some
effort so that pressure would come to bear on those individuals
or groups of individuals who were placing undue abuse on their
fellow countrymen.
I will go back again to the first point on the early warning
centre. When we think about the need in society, this is quite
an initiative. There are something like 33 conflicts raging
right now in the world which fit into the category of need of
some sort of analysis and response. There are 33 conflicts where
human rights are being abused and violence is being meted out to
individuals and groups of individuals. Torture is taking place
and polarization between different ethnic groups within areas of
conflict.
If a conflict is raging it would require a co-ordinated
response. Certainly there have been co-ordinated responses in the
past. Unfortunately sometimes they are not as rapid as they
should be. Canada, in particular, could very well play a
significant role in bringing some co-ordinated efforts together
to deal with conflicts where hundreds of thousands of people have
been killed or where there is potential for hundreds of thousands
of people being killed.
We do not have to reflect too far to look at areas like
Ethiopia, Liberia and Sierra Leone. There is a conflict raging
right now in Sudan. No one is involved but it is being
monitored. I can see Canada playing a role in the diplomatic,
economic and military initiatives.
1815
I am going to touch on the military initiative. To look after a
military initiative where a conflict is raging, one would need a
rapid response combat capable force, not one that will take weeks
and months to put into the field but one that will take a few
days. A ground force would be ready to act, if necessary, but it
would be combat capable. It would be capable of being in a
medium intensity environment with fire power that goes beyond
hand held weapons.
Canada should build its military up to that point. However we
do not fall into that category at this point in time. We have
some heavy armament but not nearly enough to respond quickly. It
is really unfortunate that we do not have heavy lift or rapid
reaction capability at this point.
The third point is economic clout, a co-ordinated effort that
the IMF and the World Bank could use against groups of
individuals who are bent on human rights abuses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time 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.
It being 6.17 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.17 p.m.)