Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 037 (Official Version)

First, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 25 of the RCMP Act, it is my pleasure to table, in both official languages, 49 Royal Canadian Mounted Police First Nations Community Policing Service Agreements for first nations communities in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Translation]

These agreements ensure that first nations communities will be provided with exclusive police services by a contingent of first nations RCMP officers.

[English]

These agreements send a clear message that the Government of Canada is committed to making communities safer, working in collaboration with provinces and first nations communities.

I also have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2006-2007 annual report on Royal Canadian Mounted Police use of the law enforcement justification provisions, and that is pursuant to subsection 25(3) of the Criminal Code.

[Translation]

This report covers the RCMP's use of specified provisions within the law enforcement justification regime as set out in sections 25(1) to 25(4) of the Criminal Code. The report also documents the nature of the investigations in which these provisions were used.

[English]

The regime applies when designated law enforcement officers commit what otherwise would be considered criminal offences during investigations and enforcement of federal laws. It provides these officers with a limited and legal justification defence, provided their conduct is reasonable and proportional under the circumstances.

* * *

Electronic Surveillance

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):

Finally, pursuant to section 195 of the Criminal Code, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2006 annual report on the use of electronic surveillance.

[Translation]

The 2006 annual report looks at electronic surveillance activities of law enforcement agencies in connection with investigations into offences that may be prosecuted by the Attorney General of Canada.

[English]

This report serves the public interest by reporting on the usefulness and effectiveness of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations on a national basis. The electronic interceptions made in 2006 resulted in 166 arrests and 60 criminal proceedings.

* * *

Export of Military Goods from Canada

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table, in both official languages, the report on Export of Military Goods from Canada, 2003 to 2005.

* * *

Government Response to Petitions

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I am honoured to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

* * *

Canada Grain Act

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group respecting its participation at four different events this summer.

The first report refers to the 48th annual meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group held in Windsor, Ontario, May 18-21, 2007.

The second report refers to the Western Governors' Association 2007 annual meeting held in Deadwood, South Dakota, United States of America, June 10-12, 2007.

The third report refers to the Council of State Governments, Eastern Regional Conference. That is the 47th annual meeting of the Regional Policy Forum held in Quebec City, Quebec, August 12-15, 2007.

The last report refers to the Pacific Northwest Economic Region 17th annual summit held in Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America, July 22-26, 2007.

(1010)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral visit to Tanzania and Uganda from September 2 to 8, 2007.

* * *

[English]

Committees of the House

Procedure and House Affairs

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding Bill C-482.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(b) the committee hereby reports that it does not concur in the first report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and is of the opinion that Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Charter of the French Language) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts should remain votable.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(b) the report is deemed adopted.

* * *

Citizenship and Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on “Iraq War Resisters”. Attached to the report is the dissenting opinion of the Conservative members of the committee.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the notice requirement to call Bill C-18 for debate today shall be waived; when the House adjourns today, and provided Bill C-18 and Bill S-2 have been read a third time and passed, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 28, 2008, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Thursday, December 13 and Friday, December 14, 2007; and if Bill C-18 and Bill S-2 are not completed before the end of government orders, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for that purpose and shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the Crown.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

* * *

Business of the House

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the notice requirement to call Bill C-18 for debate today shall be waived; when the House adjourns today, and provided Bill C-18 and Bill S-2 have been read a third time and passed, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 28, 2008, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Thursday, December 13 and Friday, December 14, 2007; and if Bill C-18 and Bill S-2 are not completed before the end of government orders, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for that purpose and shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion proposed by a minister of the Crown.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

Fewer than 25 members having risen, the motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

* * *

(1015)

Petitions

Official Development Assistance

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present a petition with numerous names of petitioners from my riding. It is the understanding of the petitioners that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations resolution calling for the members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, to contribute 0.7% of GNP as official development assistance, ODA, to its designated developing countries.

To date, Canada's contribution is 0.3%. Canada is only one of six countries of the approximately 22 nations which constitute the OECD that has not agreed to a timetable to meet the agreed target date of 2015 to achieve the aforementioned 0.7% of GNP.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to live up to its commitment and to prepare a timetable which meets the UN resolution of 0.7% of GNP for ODA to the developing countries which have been designated as recipients.

* * *

Organ Transplants

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition signed by Canadian physicians from across Canada, including some from the Province of Manitoba, which urges the Canadian government to issue travel advisories warning Canadians that organ transplants in China include the use of organs harvested from non-consenting donors, including Falun Gong practitioners.

Recent reports have indicated that there is widespread and systematic organ harvesting from unwilling, live Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese regime and the Chinese military. This has resulted in over 41,000 unaccounted for transplants. The Chinese regime has not provided any evidence to the contrary.

Canadian physicians urge the Canadian government to issue travel advisories warning Canadians that organ transplants in China are sourced almost entirely from non-consenting people, whether prisoners sentenced to death or Falun Gong practitioners.

* * *

Autism

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions.

The first petition I am pleased to table is an important petition signed by people from my riding of Hamilton Mountain, as well as residents of Brantford.

The petitioners request Parliament call upon the government to amend the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations to include IBI and ABA therapy as medically necessary for children with autism, and that all provinces be required to fund this essential treatment for autism.

The petitioners also call upon the government to create an academic chair at a university in each province to teach IBI and ABA treatments to undergraduates and doctoral level students, so that Canadian professionals will no longer be forced to leave the country to receive academic training in the field, and Canada will be able to develop the capacity to provide every Canadian with autism with the best IBI and ABA treatment available.

* * *

(1020)

Seniors

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am pleased to table today is one that arises out of my national campaign to fight for fairness for ordinary Canadians, and in particular for seniors who were shortchanged by their government as a result of an error in calculating the rate of inflation.

The government has acknowledged the mistake made by Statistics Canada, but is refusing to take any remedial action.

Petitioners from all over the country are paying attention to this issue. At this time I have received hundreds of signatures from Kelowna, Coquitlam, Langley, Victoria, Abbotsford, St-Bruno, Chatham, Oakville, Burlington, Peterborough, Beaverton, North York, Etobicoke and Milton. All the petitioners are asking for is some fairness.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to take full responsibility for this error which negatively impacted the incomes of seniors from 2001 to 2006 and take the required steps to repay every Canadian who has been shortchanged by a government program because of the miscalculation of the CPI.

I am proud to table that petition on their behalf today.

* * *

Taxation

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we find ourselves in another round of pre-budget consultations, I am pleased to present another petition on behalf of members and supporters of the building trades. This time the petitioners are from Sudbury and the Nickel Belt area in Ontario.

Building trades across the country have lobbied successive governments for over 30 years to achieve some basic fairness for their members. They want trades persons and indentured apprentices to be able to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable incomes, so that they can secure and maintain employment at construction sites that are more than 80 kilometres away from their homes.

It makes no sense for trades persons to be out of work in one area of the country while another region suffers from temporary skilled trade shortages, simply because the cost of travelling is too high.

To that end they have gathered hundreds of signatures in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-390, which would allow for precisely the kind of deductions that their members have been asking for.

I am pleased to table this petition on their behalf and share their disappointment that this item was not addressed in the government's mini-budget this fall.

* * *

Manufacturing Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many people who are concerned about the manufacturing crisis facing our country. The petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately develop and implement a plan of action to protect Canadians' manufacturing jobs, in consultation with stakeholders, including labour and the business community.

Manufacturing jobs are important to Canada's economy. A stronger manufacturing sector will lead to a strong Canadian economy. I urge members to join with me to support this important and timely petition.

* * *

[Translation]

Canada Post

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by a thousand people from Pointe-Saint-Charles and elsewhere in my riding who want the government to tell Canada Post to reverse its decision to close the Pointe-Saint-Charles post office located at 1695 Grand Trunk in Montreal.

The topic of post office closures in rural areas has been much discussed in this House. However, closing an urban post office hurts too. Some residents, particularly those in this neighbourhood, have a hard time getting around. They use wheelchairs or walkers to get to the post office. For them, a post office located several kilometres away at the end of the Victoria bridge, an area that is not served by public transportation and that is regularly congested, is just not acceptable.

Furthermore, between 200 and 300 people use post office boxes at this post office. Some people use them to maintain a permanent address, but now they will have to get new post office boxes. Others, such as victims of domestic violence, use them for reasons of confidentiality. All of these people will have trouble accessing this service in the future.

Lastly, I would like to point out that Montreal's Pointe-Saint-Charles neighbourhood is experiencing economic renewal and development. Community members have done a lot of work to attract businesses to the neighbourhood. Canada Post is sending the wrong signal by closing the only post office in the neighbourhood.

The government will have to pay attention to the thousands of people who have signed this petition and who are taking part in a rally about this today. I hope they will be heard, and I hope Canada Post will reverse its decision.

* * *

[English]

Asbestos

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, as a former asbestos worker, I am proud to rise in the House with a petition signed by the people from the great province of Saskatchewan who are concerned about Canada's continuing role in exporting asbestos into the third world. As we know, asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has known, and Canada remains the big tobacco of industrial exports because of its involvement in the asbestos trade.

The petitioners call for a very practical, straightforward program to redeem Canada's reputation in the international community. It would be to ban asbestos in all its forms; to institute a just transition program for the workers in the communities where asbestos has been mined; to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad; and to have Canada stand up and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers and their families from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.

* * *

Security and Prosperity Partnership

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition that comes from people in Winnipeg, particularly in my constituency of Winnipeg North.

The petitioners are very concerned about the government's plans and proposals around continental integration and specifically the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which they believe is really NAFTA on steroids. They are very concerned about the 300 initiatives under this overall, overarching plan, which they say will lead to Canada lowering its standards to fit with those of the United States and Mexico, thereby putting at risk the health and safety of Canadians and of course the environment in which we live.

The petitioners would like the government to come clean on this plan, allow for a full debate in Parliament and ensure that nothing about Canada or our sovereignty is put at stake because of this agenda.

(1025)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Before I recognize the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing on a point of order, I might just say that the length of the preamble and the follow-through surrounding the presentation of petitions is getting longer and longer. I would just caution hon. members to keep that in mind when presenting petitions. I am not referring to anybody in particular. This morning there are a number of culprits from all sides of the House.

I recognize the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing on a point of order.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brent St. Denis:

Mr. Speaker, mindful of your admonition, I will be very brief. I would ask the indulgence of the House to revert for a few moments to the introduction of private members' bills.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is there unanimous agreement to revert to the introduction of private members' bills?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

Aboriginal History and Culture School Curriculum Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Lib.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-496, An Act to promote the teaching of aboriginal history and culture in Canada's schools.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for seconding this bill. If passed, the bill would ask that the federal government to work with the provinces, first nations and aboriginal leaders across the country to ensure that as much as possible our primary and secondary schools will include in their curriculum the teaching of aboriginal history and culture to promote understanding and better comprehension of the history and culture of our very important first nations and aboriginal peoples in this country.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

[Translation]

Point of Order

Bill C-3—Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Point of Order]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order.

On behalf of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, I am appealing to you with regard to a decision made by the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on December 6. The chair deemed that an amendment introduced by my colleague on behalf of the Bloc Québécois was out of order.

I will explain very quickly. This has to do with Bill C-3 concerning security certificates. The bill already allows an appeal, but only in very restricted circumstances. An appeal can be made only if a judge believes that a serious question of general importance is involved. Only then can the case be re-examined.

Since the bill opened the debate on appeals and in light of the serious consequences of security certificates, we amended this appeal process to broaden it. People can be detained for several years on the basis of these security certificates. We therefore wanted the appeal process to go beyond what the bill allowed and be governed by more or less the same provisions as in the Criminal Code.

When my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin introduced his amendment, which we felt was in order because it amended an existing part of the bill—namely, the appeal process—the amendment was ruled out of order because it was considered to be outside the scope of the law. Consequently, we were unable to discuss the amendment in committee, and our colleague was not even able to present his arguments.

I would like to bring to your attention the French and English dictionary definitions of “scope of the law”, which in French is rendered as portée de la loi. The English term is found in the eighth edition of Black's Law Dictionary.

(1030)

[English]

It states that “scope of authority” is:

The range of reasonable power that an agent has been delegated or might foreseeably be delegated in carrying out the principal's business.

[Translation]

The French term “portée”, or scope, is defined in the third edition of the Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien:

Scope: term used to refer to the area of application or effects of an act, agreement, legal decision, etc.

Consequently, in our opinion, the amendment introduced by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was completely in order because it pertained to an existing clause of the bill. Certainly, it broadened that clause, but in our opinion, when a bill is being studied clause by clause, nothing prohibits a member from introducing an amendment that broadens or restricts an existing clause of the bill—in this case, the appeal clause.

We are therefore calling on you to rule that this amendment was in order, so that we can introduce it here, in Committee of the Whole, when we discuss Bill C-3 regarding security certificates.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rising on the same point of order?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the hon. House leader of the Bloc Québécois, I would point out that the ruling in committee by the chair of that committee was that this amendment was out of order, that it was outside the scope of the bill.

Of course as we all know, and as you well know, Mr. Speaker, committee decisions are made and should be final and binding, but I should also point out to my hon. friend that those rulings are not done in an arbitrary manner. Those rulings are usually done after consultation, with legal counsel in some cases, and certainly with the advice and the interpretations on a process and procedures basis from all clerks who assist our chairs and all committees.

I would certainly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. colleague, that the ruling was in fact a correct one and should not be interpreted otherwise.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The Chair does intend to rule on this, but not at the moment. I have listened to hon. member for Joliette and also to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. The bill in question is not now before the House. At the appropriate time, there will be a ruling from the Chair on this point of order.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[English]

Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

There being no motions at report stage of this bill, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (for the Minister of Finance)

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Table of Contents]

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.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please nay.

An hon. member: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (for the Minister of Finance)

moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful, in the spirit of Christmas, how things are moving along quickly here today. We know that all hon. members want to get home to their families to celebrate Christmas. It is wonderful to see everyone working together here this morning.

We do have some business to finish up, so I rise today to speak to Bill S-2 at third reading. The passing of this bill, once it receives royal assent, completes Canada's role in the ratification of an agreement to update major elements of the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

The U.S., for its part, must also ratify this agreement before it comes into effect.

As the House may know, Canada and the U.S. have had a tax treaty in place since 1980. Since that time, there have been four updates or protocols to this treaty. This is to ensure that our respective tax systems evolve to reflect economic and social changes.

Bill S-2 represents the fifth update to the treaty. Canada has numerous tax treaties with other countries as well. However, given the unique relationship we have with the Americans, the Canada-U.S. tax treaty is generally viewed as the one of most importance.

This treaty is part and parcel of the government's plan to create a tax advantage for Canada and we have a long term economic plan for Canada's future called “Advantage Canada”. This plan was designed to improve our quality of life and to make Canada a world leader for today and for future generations.

“Advantage Canada” promotes five competitive economic advantages we need to succeed in today's global economy: a fiscal advantage, a tax advantage, a knowledge advantage, an entrepreneurial advantage and an infrastructure advantage. Each of those advantages does not stand alone. Rather, they stand interconnected with each other. In other words, we are creating a Canadian advantage on those five fronts.

Given that we are talking about a tax treaty today, it is creating a tax advantage that I would like to highlight today. A Canadian tax advantage will help individuals, families and businesses to get ahead and stay ahead. Moreover, it will reward initiative and make Canada the global investment destination of choice. A tax advantage starts with reducing taxes for Canadians. Of course, taxes pay for Canada's important public services but high taxes limit Canadians' opportunities and choices.

With a more focused government, we can both lower taxes to create better incentives for Canadians to succeed and provide significant funding for priorities.

A tax advantage is about reducing taxes in all areas to stimulate investment and economic growth. This includes reducing personal income taxes to improve rewards from working, from saving and investing in new knowledge and skills. It includes creating a business tax advantage that will encourage businesses to invest in Canada. In turn, this will spur innovation and growth leading to more jobs and higher wages for Canadian workers.

The government also continues its commitment to restoring tax fairness. Canadians deserve to know that everyone will pay their fair share of taxes. That is what tax fairness is all about.

Indeed, tax fairness is key to the “Advantage Canada” plan. This plan will make our tax system simpler, fairer and more competitive. This will help us to compete in the global marketplace. We have taken significant action in that direction.

Most recently, this fall's economic statement proposed broad based tax relief of almost $60 billion for individuals, families and businesses over this and the next five fiscal years.

Combined with previous relief provided by the government, total tax relief over the same period is almost $190 billion. These dramatic tax reductions and initiatives will benefit families with children, workers, seniors, persons with disabilities and others.

(1035)

They will also strengthen our tax advantage to help all Canadian businesses compete and succeed in the global marketplace. These important initiatives will help attract investment to Canada. Moreover, this action will increase productivity and economic growth and create more and better jobs for Canadians.

What, one may ask, does this have to do with tax treaties? Tax treaties and tax fairness are inextricably linked. Our tax treaties help contribute to the growth of the Canadian economy, particularly by encouraging trade. This is principally important because exports account for more than 40% of Canada's annual GDP.

In addition, tax treaties help attract investment in Canada. This investment means inflows of capital, technology and information, all of which contribute to Canada's economic growth, job creation and the well-being of our citizens.

In short, our government must ensure that Canada's system of international taxation is competitive. We have worked to ensure that our network of bilateral tax treaties is up to date in order to help Canadian companies and investors to prosper and succeed.

One important function of tax treaties to keep in mind when considering this bill is that they help eliminate double taxation. I trust that hon. members would agree that there is little that can have more of a negative impact on the expansion of our trade and the movement of capital and labour between countries than double taxation.

The potential for double taxation comes about when a taxpayer resides in one country and earns income in another. Without a tax treaty in place, both countries can claim tax on that same income.

One of the goals for Canada, therefore, in negotiating its tax treaties, is to remove the potential for double taxation. This not only helps provide incentives for investment, it promotes fairness in our tax system. That is why one of the proposals in Bill S-2 would allow taxpayers to demand that otherwise insoluble tax issues be settled through arbitration, thus ensuring that there is no double taxation of immigrants' gains.

Given the special relationship that Canada has with the U.S., it makes sense that our tax treaty would also be special. Indeed, Canada's income tax treaty with the United States is vital. It helps to ensure the efficient flow of trade between our two countries. These changes to the treaty, signed in September, will stimulate further trade and investment and make our tax systems more efficient.

Canadians and Canadian businesses will benefit from this treaty update in a number of ways. They will see reduced borrowing costs and a more competitive lending market with the elimination of withholding tax on interest paid on all arm's length debt.

Since treaty benefits will be extended to limited liability companies, the protocol in Bill S-2 would provide better access to U.S. capital. With further harmonization of the tax treatment of pension contributions in the two countries and new rules to clarify the treatment of stock options, this proposed legislation would also provide more mobility for Canadians working in the U.S.

Furthermore, these changes would, among other benefits, reduce the cost of cross-border financing and would have a positive effect on investment and, above all, simplify the tax system. All of these benefits, in turn, support the competitiveness of Canada's multinational enterprises. These are important considerations that we need to keep in mind when debating this bill.

One of the most important aspects of the Canada-U.S. tax treaty is the proposal respecting withholding tax. Reaction from taxpayers to this measure has been particularly positive.

Following the signing of the treaty, the director of the C.D. Howe Institute said:

And our research suggests that the bilateral elimination of withholding taxes will substantially improve the efficiency of capital markets, attract foreign direct investment to the country, and help Canadians penetrate the North American market on a more competitive basis.

Reaction from the other side of the border has been equally supportive. Treasury Secretary Paulson, at the signing of the agreement in September, said that updating our treaty enables us “to move even more swiftly in the global economy”.

(1040)

Canadians will particularly benefit from easier cross-border investment as the withholding tax is removed from interest paid between non-arm's length persons between Canada and the U.S.

I will explain why this is a good thing for Canadians. Canada and most other countries levy a withholding tax on passive forms of income earned by non-residents. This fifth protocol will eliminate the source country tax on cross-border interest paid between unrelated persons and will gradually eliminate the maximum withholding rate for interest payments between related persons.

For unrelated party interests, the withholding tax is zero as soon as the protocol becomes ratified. An example would be in the interest that banks pay to a depositor. For related party or non-arm's length interest, the tax will be eliminated in three stages: from 10% to 7%, then to 4% and finally to zero after three years. This could be, for example, between a Canadian company and its subsidiary in the U.S.

With these important tax reductions for payments to and from the United States, the government is in a position to remove the withholding tax on all arm's length interest payments to non-residents, regardless of where they reside.

This initiative announced in budget 2007 represents a major step forward in Canada's international tax policy. The legislation to implement this measure contained in Bill C-28 is currently going through the parliamentary process, as we have watched in the last few days. Once passed, this measure will increase access to foreign capital markets. It will reduce costs for Canadians and Canadian businesses that borrow from foreign lenders.

It is important to point out here that the government had originally planned to tie the effective date of this general tax reduction to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty protocol. However, given the uncertainty of when the protocol will be ratified on both sides of the border, the government proposes to give the domestic rule a fixed start date of January 1, 2008. This will provide certainty for Canadian investors so that after 2007 they will no longer need to withhold interest on tax paid to arm's length persons in any country.

Summing up, this tax treaty bill, like others that preceded it, is directly related to international trade and investment. These bills have a significant and a direct benefit to the Canadian economy. This is no small consideration in a world where Canadian exports, as I said earlier, account for more than 40% of our annual GDP.

Furthermore, direct foreign investment, as well as inflows of information, capital and technology, represent the lifeblood of Canada's economic wealth. As a result, eliminating tax impediments in these areas, as this bill proposes to do, is of utmost importance, and that is why passing this bill is also of utmost importance.

I, therefore, encourage the hon. members from all parties to pass this bill into law quickly.

(1045)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Ind.):

Mr. Speaker, I have three brief questions for the member who just addressed the House regarding this bill.

First of all, if I understood correctly, the provisions of this bill will allow employees and cross-border workers to benefit from the same advantages as resident workers. Is that the case?

Second, if I understood correctly, this would be valid while they are working; but will they also be protected when the time comes to retire, with respect to their pensions?

Third, I listened carefully to my colleague and I heard only positive comments. But it is important to look at the other side of the coin. Does this bill in fact have any negative aspects?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's second question, I have not heard any negative aspects mentioned here in the debate. What I do hear is positive comments and that it is very important to investors.

As for the hon. member's first question about working on one side of the border and living on another, this is one of the most critical improvements that we can make. There are many places in the country, such as in New Brunswick and in the Windsor-Detroit corridor where people are back and forth across the border. On the lower mainland of British Columbia many people live in the U.S. and work on the Canadian side and vice versa.

As for the hon. member's question, it does carry on beyond their working days. Many pension contributions have been ineffective or focused on one side of the border. This treaty would allow people, who work for a corporation that has entities on both sides of the border, to continue to contribute to their pension and be able to do that on both sides of the border. That is one very important aspect.

(1050)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important bill. However, what people should understand is that the bill has come from the Senate, which is an issue in itself, but second to that, there has not been a single witness about this bill and tax treaty, and that is very important.

I want to be clear about this in my question for the parliamentary secretary because we are getting contradictory information about this.

Is it the government's interpretation that the bill would eliminate all double taxation of U.S. social security recipients? Is the parliamentary secretary 100% sure that constituents, like myself, who are collecting U.S. social security, will not get double taxed anymore and that this would rectify a historic problem that we have had with double taxation for U.S. social security recipients? Is he clear that the bill would end that practice?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies:

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my hon. colleague that it is very important for his constituents to have this treaty in place because it will protect pension benefits. Many employees of the auto industry can be transferred from one entity to the other and so the protection of their pension benefits is one of the important aspects.

One of the other important aspects that we do need to remind hon. members about is the arbitration process that this brings into play. We have all heard horror stories of dealing with the tax departments on both the Canadian and the U.S. side. We all would like to think it could work better but when there is an issue this would provide a mandatory process of appeal that was not in place before, which can impact residents on both sides of the border, and this would allow them to have their concerns heard by an independent arbitrator.

This has many important aspects to it and the sharing of making social security benefits taxable only in the recipients country of residence is one of the important aspects.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, of course the Standing Committee on Finance studied this bill. The committee also looked at other tax treaties, including the treaty with Barbados regarding tax havens.

The government took action on this matter, although this bill comes from the Senate. Before it was elected, the government said—and it repeated this at the Standing Committee on Finance—that it would take action on the matter of tax havens and the tax evasion that goes on in Barbados, for example.

I would like to ask him a very specific question. Can the parliamentary secretary give us a date on which the government will come forward with a proposal to resolve the tax haven issue?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague plays an active role on the finance committee. He also played a very active role last night in our voting procedure as a parent. We all recognized that he was doing his fatherly duty by having his child with him. We applaud his courage for bringing his child into the House. Remembering our families is what it is all about at this time of year.

The government has a s great concern about tax avoidance and we are doing everything within our power to bring in legislation that will stop the avoidance of taxes. As our Prime Minister has said, there is no such thing as a good tax, but we all recognize that taxes are necessary.

This government has gone to great lengths to ensure that the main point that we are driving forward is tax fairness. Anyone who thinks they can continue to avoid paying taxes will be met with new types of legislation, such as the one we have brought forward which would ensure that people do not pay more than their fair share and that they do not avoid paying their fair share.

(1055)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to be clear on this because we are getting mixed information from research. Is it the government's interpretation that this bill would eliminate all double taxation of U.S. social security recipients who are living in Canada but who have worked in the United States? Would this bill eliminate the double taxation that historically has taken place? Would it meet the provisions in Bill C-265, the private member's bill put forward by the member for Essex?

I want the parliamentary secretary to be on the record for the government . Would Bill S-2 achieve that goal?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies:

Mr. Speaker, in the 1997 tax treaty protocol, Canada and the U.S. agreed to make cross-border social security benefits taxable only in the recipient's country of residence. My understanding is that has already been dealt with in a previous tax treaty.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984. We are now on third reading, which happened quite rapidly earlier today. I think the cooperation in this House seems to be quite rampant at this time of year.

The Canada-United States Tax Convention Act was last updated in 1997 and, prior to that, in 1995 by the former Liberal government. It is important that these conventions get reviewed and updated regularly. In fact, the former Liberal government had already started negotiating this new tax convention with the U.S. even after the adoption of the last convention.

Like any tax convention or tax treaty, these agreements are important to the economic success of a country and, in particular, under current conditions where countries and all stakeholders need to compete on the international scene.

This particular convention is important since it is with our largest trading partner, a country with over $50 billion of trade on an annual basis.

While international tax law, especially in this place, does not always make for the most exciting of debates, its importance is indisputable, especially as we move toward greater globalization and greater free movement of labour and capital across international borders.

We have had tax treaties in place with many countries for many years and, as with most laws, there comes a time when they need to be amended in order to reflect the changing times. This is one of those situations where we see a more rapid change in the actual conditions than the actual conventions themselves. Consequently, this bill presents some routine amendments that I believe will help to ensure Canada remains a leading participant in the global economy.

International arrangements, such as these, allow for relatively free movement of people and capital across borders, contributing greatly to the rich, multicultural nature of the country.

(1100)

[Translation]

Some members in this House think that tax treaties are signed as a way of avoiding taxes. In fact, if these treaties are well written and properly understood, they make the taxation system more effective and promote trade—the exchange of goods and services—and do not add an administrative burden. Everyone benefits from treaties that are well written and signed in due form. They encourage foreign investment and increase trade, as I was saying.

[English]

Bill S-2, in turn, would also be a valuable tool to help certain industries improve Canadian productivity. Even though the latest Conservative measures, such as reducing the GST, do not improve productivity, nothing is even close to being fair about some of the Conservative latest tax planning or tax initiatives that they have come up with.

The worst example in the last couple of weeks is their tax policy or tax system where in the 2006 budget they raised the lowest personal income rate to 15.5% and now have announced that they will bring the rate back down to the original Liberal rate of 15%. People can all try and figure that one out.

Another advantage of Bill S-2 is that it would eliminate source country withholding tax on cross-border interest payments. Canadians who borrow money, and I would say mainly large corporations that borrow money from American lenders, would no longer need to withhold and remit Canadian tax on the interest payments.

Bill S-2 would also provide an advantage for Canadians to better access the U.S. debt market. Sometimes we see larger corporations having difficulty in accessing capital here in Canada. The Americans have a larger capital base and I think that will help the opening up to the debt market. We will see what happens in the short term with some of the crisis that we are seeing in the U.S. right now. However, this convention should definitely provide an easier flow of obtaining some debt for some of the Canadian companies. It also will be easier for companies to finance their expansion and, hopefully, their expansion into other markets other than here in Canada.

The bill would also allow taxpayers to require otherwise unsolvable double tax issues to be settled through arbitration. This arbitration rule is an important element of the bill because it would increase taxpayers' confidence that the tax treaty will resolve potential double taxation situations. These convention tax treaties, the basic purpose, in normal circumstances, is to avoid double taxation, should solve the fact that no double taxation of gains or even deemed gains of immigrants to Canada will arise.

The bill would also extend treaty benefits to limited liability companies by removing a potential impediment to cross-border investment which arises from private equity funds and their comings and goings. I will probably address this point later on in my speech because this point was brought up at the finance committee during the prebudget consultations in the past. This would make it easier for companies to bring their products from the research stage to the actual market commercialization phase. Hopefully, this will result in more research and development work to be completed in Canada and potentially for exporting to other markets, in this case the U.S. market.

More and more workers are temporarily being reassigned outside the borders and apparently more into the U.S.

Bill S-2 would give mutual tax recognition to pension contributors. In other words, provided certain conditions are met, cross-border commuters may deduct, for residence country tax purposes, the pension contributions they make to a plan or arrangement in the country where they work. People who move temporarily from one country to the other for work reasons can, subject to certain conditions, get tax recognition in their temporary new home country for pension contributions they continue to make to their original employer's pension plan. This proposal would facilitate the movement of personnel between Canada and the U.S. by removing a possible disincentive for commuters in temporary work assignments.

That is definitive a positive step. There is also an advantage for clarifying how stock options are taxed or, in other words, the harmonization of the rules in both countries. There are a whole bunch of other technical amendments in this bill that if we have some additional time I will get into.

I want to address the importance of these conventions. These conventions are great, fine and dandy. We can improve them, ratify them and pass them into law in this country, but the fact that they are international tax agreements, we require an entity on the other side to also sign these conventions. These conventions and tax treaties are not worth the paper they are written on if we cannot get the other countries to ratify them.

I wish that this particular legislation had been brought forward to the finance committee. Instead, the present government decided to bring it before the international trade committee. I am not sure why it went through without too many witnesses. We would have probably looked at ensuring that there was a willingness on the other wide to have this treaty ratified and signed quite rapidly.

(1105)

There are some tax treaties that we signed in the past that have yet to be signed by other countries. I know of many in particular that have been negotiated with Italy. I think there are some agreements that are at least five years old that have not been signed by the other country to the agreement, so there are pending issues in terms of double taxation where there are people who are being taxed in Canada and other countries. Again I would caution the present government to make sure that even though we ratify these conventions or enact the legislation, the government make it a priority to have the other country ratify the agreement or convention as well.

Since I have some time, I will explain how some of the amendments got into this bill. I would like to take credit for some of them. I chaired the finance committee in 2004, and we did a very thorough job. There were a lot of presentations made before the committee in terms of what Canadians and Canadian businesses were looking for when doing business in the United States.

We devoted practically a whole chapter of our report to business growth and prosperity. We included in it some of the testimony given by witnesses. There is one paragraph I would like to read into the record where witnesses urged that changes be made to the non-resident withholding tax regime to ensure that Canada remained competitive. This was in 2004 and three years later we are still at this.

It was suggested, for example, that the Department of Finance negotiate a new provision with the U.S. to eliminate withholding tax on all dividends and interest to both related and unrelated parties. They mentioned a recent study which claimed that the elimination of withholding taxes on all dividends and interest would result in increased capital investment in Canada of $28 billion. Even a fraction of that would help certain sectors of this country, especially the manufacturing sector. It would also result in increased income of $7.5 billion annually. It was pointed out that while there would be a federal fiscal cost associated with eliminating withholding tax, the economy would benefit in the long run. Again this was in 2004. The committee also heard that Canada's dividend tax rate is now much higher than that in the U.S., with a 15% federal tax rate.

As a result of that, I am proud to say that in 2004 we made over 30 recommendations. Of those, there were at least five that pertained to items that needed to be addressed when it came to the Canada-U.S. tax treaty. I will read into the record one of the recommendations that I thought was important:

The federal government ensure that the effective tax rate for Canadian corporations is competitive with that in the United States and elsewhere. Within that context, the government should: review the timetable for elimination of the federal large corporations tax; review the timetable for the tax changes for the resource sector; consider immediate elimination of the corporate surtax; and review the corporate income tax rates and other taxes paid by corporations.

Recommendation 13 reads:

The federal government, bearing in mind Recommendation 16 regarding a review of capital gains, review the current federal tax treatment of dividend income and non-resident withholding taxes with a view to ensuring that the tax treatment in Canada remains competitive with the rest of the world, particularly the United States, and that the tax treatment does not distort investment decisions.

Another recommendation that was applied in the U.S.-Canada convention is that the federal government revise Canada's cost allowance rates such that the Canadian rates are similar to rates for comparable asset classes in the United States and other countries. In fact, this one has not been addressed yet by the current government.

Recommendation 24 was that the federal government undertake a comprehensive review of the personal taxation system in Canada, including the value of the basic personal amount and other particular aspects of the Income Tax Act, but always taking into account that the review should be undertaken with a view to ensuring that Canada's personal taxation system is both fair and as competitive as possible with other countries, particularly the United States.

(1110)

We have seen the importance of this convention in the past. Other recommendations were made that also referred to making sure that we are competitive with the United States.

In the finance committee's 2006 prebudget report, everything is recapped in one little passage which states, “The federal government expedite the review of the tax treaty between Canada and the United States. This review should specifically address Canadian recognition of the United States limited liability corporations” . This is one of the items that is in the bill right now.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right that there probably should have been some witnesses to come forward and speak about this tax treaty. Also, the bill went to the international trade committee and not the finance committee.

I would ask the member why, at that committee, did the Liberals join with the Conservatives to block witnesses? The NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster asked for witnesses to be brought forward and the Liberals and the Conservatives blocked that from happening. Why did his party take that position?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti:

Mr. Speaker, that was my point. This bill should have been sent to the finance committee. It should have been sent to the proper people to look at this bill in a proper fashion.

Why did the Liberals not ask for witnesses? As usual, the bill was probably presented at the last minute and they were probably not ready. The finance committee at that time was travelling and I think it just shows the lack of preparedness on the side of the Conservative members.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says that this tax treaty with the United States was not given its due.

However, the Standing Committee on Finance spent a great deal of time examining the tax treaty with Barbados. When the current government was in the opposition, it was in favour of rapidly plugging the loopholes that allow people to bring money back to Canada from tax havens without having to pay tax. Now that it is in government, it seems to be well-intentioned, but we are still waiting for results.

It was the Liberal Party that was responsible for creating these loopholes in the first place. In fact, it was the former minister of finance and current member for LaSalle—Émard who did so. He even had Parliament pass retroactive legislation to allow money to be repatriated from Barbados tax free.

I would like to know whether the Liberals, now that they are in opposition, have changed their minds and are willing to cooperate with the other parties to resolve the tax havens problem.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Massimo Pacetti:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to point out something to follow up on what I was saying earlier. Some hon. members still do not understand the tax treaty concept. The purpose of these treaties is not to create tax havens, but to enhance and facilitate international trade with full respect for these agreements.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois in the last session, calling for an examination of the tax treaty with Barbados, did in fact receive support from the Liberal Party. When it came time for a report on the matter, there was not a word from the Bloc members. I think they still do not understand what a tax treaty is.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask a question because I knew that I would have the opportunity to reply to my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance. I am pleased to see that he wishes this committee to examine this issue once again. An agreement will be reached readily given that the government has already stated that it supports continuing with the review already begun by the Standing Committee on Finance.

I now know that the Liberal Party also supports proceeding and I have no doubt at all that the NDP would also like to examine the issue of companies that use tax havens such as Barbados, the most well known example, to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

I would like to spend most of my time on this subject. The tax agreement with the United States covered by the bill under consideration is not a problem. We all know that the United States is not a tax haven. The bill gives cross-border workers the same tax benefits as resident workers. It will institute a bipartite tribunal or board to settle tax disputes and to tighten rules for certain types of companies, making it more difficult to use various tax loopholes.

The bill eliminates certain provisions pertaining to double taxation of capital gains. We support this and I believe it has a great deal of support from parliamentarians. I do not wish to go into too much detail about this matter.

However, it is surprising that the government has time for such matters. That is fine, we are not criticizing them, but we are questioning their unwillingness to shut down tax havens.

I would like to backtrack a bit to have a better understanding of what is at issue. There is a general rule among various countries that sign tax agreements. If tax is paid in one country, it is not paid a second time on the same income when the money is repatriated to the country of origin. According to this principle, the same income is not taxed twice.

That said, in order to know whether companies have paid taxes in their country of origin, Canada negotiates tax treaties with other countries. Among other things, these treaties provide for the exchange of information about taxes paid in another country, so that Canada knows whether or not the money should be taxed when it is brought back here. If there is no tax treaty or exchange of information, Canada assumes that taxes were not paid and claims the corresponding taxes when the money is brought back.

In the past, in the Liberal days, a bill was introduced by the finance minister at the time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, to establish a tax treaty with Barbados, telling our companies that do business in Barbados and pay taxes there that they should not also pay taxes in Canada. At issue was a famous example of a company doing business in Barbados, Canada Steamship Lines International, which was of course owned by the family of the member for LaSalle—Émard.

Up to this point, everything is fine and seems to make sense. The problem is that the tax rate for international companies in Barbados is 2%. Obviously, it is rather ridiculous to say that these companies paid taxes in Barbados, since they paid 2%. Really, it was getting a gift. Then, companies such as Canada Steamship Lines are allowed to bring back to Canada the money they had earned from having their head office in Barbados, without having to pay taxes here.

There is another loophole in this mechanism that the Liberals themselves introduced. Obviously, the act requires there to be a real place of business in Barbados. It also states that the revenues must genuinely be earned in Barbados, and that they must not simply be a financing scheme to avoid paying taxes.

Members will probably remember the very telling report that aired in Quebec, aptly called Les évasions barbares, or The Barbarian Evasions.

(1115)

A journalist went to Barbados, to the building that is home to the head offices of hundreds of companies that supposedly do business there. The journalist found that the building has about a hundred tiny rooms just big enough to accommodate a secretary and two filing cabinets. Obviously, the journalist demonstrated by this very fact that it would be impossible for a company that generates millions of dollars to really have a head office there, in such a small partitioned office with only a desk, a typist, a computer and two filing cabinets.

In reality, the decisions made by those companies are made in Canada or elsewhere around the world. Their activities take place in Canada or elsewhere around the world, but their financing is such that all revenue is artificially declared in Barbados and is subject to a ridiculously low tax rate, only 2%. They then send the money back to Canada, maintaining that they have already paid taxes in Barbados and therefore should not have to pay taxes in Canada.

This scheme is possible because of the negligence of the Liberal government at the time and we hope that the Conservative government will be proactive in this file, as it claims it will. At the time, the Liberal government was negligent and even had the audacity to adopt retroactive measures with respect to the tax treaty with Barbados. In fact, when the bill was adopted, the provisions were that the treaty would apply retroactively to 1995. By a curious coincidence, that was the same year that Canada Steamship Lines was established in Barbados. That was a rather interesting situation, especially since, when it comes to retroactivity, both the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to adopt a double standard.

Obviously, the guaranteed income supplement is a perfect example. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting for the seniors who have been swindled out of the guaranteed income supplement. They are owed money because they were misinformed and were unable to claim the money at the appropriate time. They must be given full retroactivity, that is, they must be given the money that is owing to them. It is not a gift; they are entitled to this money. Yet, this is not being done.

Naturally, when people have to pay taxes because they have forgotten to declare income over the past five or ten years, retroactivity applies. Those at fault cannot tell the tax man that he caught them too late, so they should only have to pay for the past 11 months. If they get caught, they have to pay taxes for the past five or ten years.

The same goes for Barbados. New legislation was retroactive. No big deal, it provided tax shelters to companies so they could get off without having to pay any taxes. No big deal, retroactivity applied. In contrast, when it comes to reimbursing seniors, when it is time to give them the money they are entitled to, the government says too bad, it cannot be done.

The Liberals did not want to budge when people were asking them to. We challenged them on the fact that they were offering full retroactivity in terms of tax breaks for the richest companies, but were not doing the same for seniors. During the election campaign, the Conservatives said that they would grant seniors full retroactivity. Now they are refusing to do it because they say they are in charge and things have changed.

What does it mean for politics when a member or a minister says that now that he is in government, things have changed? Does it mean that he said whatever he wanted beforehand? Does it mean that the government has the right to withhold the truth and mislead the public? That is a very strange way to operate.

I really want to take this opportunity to emphasize something to all parties in this House. Even though the Bloc Québécois supports the bill before us concerning the tax convention with the United States, we want to re-examine issues related to other tax conventions between Canada and other countries, conventions that are designed not to help workers, but to enable companies to pay next to no tax in Canada and opt out of their fair contribution.

(1120)

We will continue this work after the holidays. If the Liberals want to work with us, so much the better. I hope that the Conservative government will act as quickly as it says it will.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the member for Jeanne-Le Ber said. He said some things that are incorrect, in my opinion.

(1125)

[English]

First, when the member for LaSalle—Émard was the finance minister and then the prime minister, the Bloc Québécois members tried to tarnish his reputation because it was in their political interest to do that, and they are still trying to do it.

I will highlight a few facts for the member.

First, the former finance minister would have recused himself from any discussion around shipping that would have come before him from the Department of Finance or in cabinet. This was a very clear requirement and he followed that rigorously.

Second, all his assets were in a blind trust at that time, so he did not know what was transpiring with respect to Canada Steamship Lines.

Finally, any reasonable person, who understands the world of shipping, would understand that an international shipping company is always set up in a place where there are flags of convenience and where there are tax havens. All these companies operate in that way. If they do not operate that way, they will not be in international shipping for very long. It is a total legal transaction and it is done by everyone.

When is the member for Jeanne-Le Ber going to read the information, get the facts and stop trying to tarnish the reputation of the member for LaSalle—Émard?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Speaker, the omnibus bill that contained the clauses on the tax convention with Barbados and was retroactive to 1995 was introduced by the member for LaSalle—Émard. Now, I am being told that he had never discussed it with finance department officials. How is it that he introduced a bill in this House containing clauses that were allegedly never discussed and whose legal implications he allegedly never considered?

Either the member is mistaken and the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, did address that issue and did examine the implications of these clauses, contrary to what the member just said, or the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was the finance minister at the time, never considered the impacts of these clauses and was completely unaware of how clauses in a bill he introduced in this House could affect his family company. I have some trouble imagining that. Either way, he acted irresponsibly.

It is a well-known fact that he did not run the day-to-day operations of Canada Steamship Lines. However, if someone owns a company, he need not be involved directly in its management to know that if it moved to Barbados in 1995 it might be interesting to make the tax agreement retroactive to 1995.

The last item has to do with the competitiveness of these corporations. Let us be frank. If it were really true, why would there not be a special tax treatment for these corporations in Canada? At least the 2% to 5% in tax that could be collected would be paid in Canada. At present, we lose everything. Are we prepared to accept for all time that the existence of tax havens and corporations without infrastructure to support—these shipping companies use our infrastructure and our ports and the consumer goods are destined for our markets or are being shipped by our producers via these ships—justifies the burden being shouldered by Canadian taxpayers alone?

We have to find means of ensuring, among other things, that everyone pays their fair share. The member has just confirmed the Liberal Party's true methods. These companies must be profitable; therefore there is no other option but to be based in a tax haven such as Barbados.

I could make the following argument as I mentioned earlier. Two months ago I became the father of a baby girl. I could say that in order to pay my rent I have no choice but to pay less tax and I will work under the table. It does not work like that. I cannot say that because I need to pay less I have to find a way of not paying my taxes. Everyone has to pay taxes, citizens and corporations alike.

(1130)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Roy Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, I will make a couple of points.

First, under Canadian tax law, if the direction and control of a company emanates from Canada, then its profits are taxable in Canada. If the member would check the records, he would understand that Canada Steamship Lines at that time had international and domestic operations. The international operations were based outside of Canada. If Revenue Canada ever believed that the direction and control of the international operations emanated from Canada Steamship Lines in Montreal, it could have assessed income tax. There was nothing to preclude that.

Second, the member says that the former finance minister must have known what was in the bill. I do not know on what grounds he makes that statement. Again, if he would check the record, he would understand that when the member for LaSalle—Émard was finance minister, there was also a secretary of state for finance. That is how these matters were handled under the Liberal government. The secretary of state for finance would deal with any matters that touched on international shipping, and the finance minister was absolutely scrupulous about that.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how many Canadian taxpayers are going to believe that.

If the then minister of finance had no idea what impact this bill would have on his family business, if he did not use his influence, then he is unbelievably lucky. Things just happened to work out for him? I have my doubts.

If the former finance minister and member for LaSalle—Émard is truly as innocent as the hon. member claims, then he is a very lucky man because the bill truly worked out quite well for his family business.

As for where the international division of Canada Steamship Lines International operates from—I mentioned this in my speech—that was one of the things that was questioned by a Quebec journalist who went to Barbados. He knocked on the door of the Canada Steamship Lines International office, but no one answered. There was just a small sign on the door that said: Canada Steamship Lines International.

Since the hon. member is so determined to defend the integrity of his colleague from LaSalle—Émard, then I invite him to go on a little mission. Let him invite us to see the Canada Steamship Lines International offices in Barbados. It would be my pleasure to go there and I am sure a number of my colleagues here in this House would be happy to do so as well. A trip like that would leave us with a lot of free time because visiting the offices of Canada Steamship Lines International would take only 30 to 40 seconds since there practically are no offices.

And if the headquarters are truly in Barbados, with hundreds of employees working there and keeping this company in operation, then, when we return from our trip that the hon. member is going to invite us to take, I will say in this House that I was wrong.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill S-2, which is an act to amend the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

It is interesting to listen to my Liberal colleagues' defence of the member for LaSalle—Émard and his tax avoidance scheme in the Barbados. It is kind of like listening to the captain of the Titanic describe how well things went. It is unbelievable not to address the fundamental problems of reflagging and so forth.

I do want to segue a little into this tax treaty bill. It is tempting to spend half an hour or 20 minutes of our time on reflagging ships and also on the consequences to workers and so forth in the avoidance of taxation, but I do want to focus on Bill S-2 in particular.

There are some concerns in this process and in this actual tax treaty that do not resolve significant issues for my riding of Windsor West as well as Essex County and, greater than that, for individuals living in Quebec, New Brunswick and other places, where significant numbers of pensioners collecting U.S. social security and making contributions in the United States had the tax treaty changed on them.

This process still leaves them in limbo and is actually still counter to the private member's bill of the government's own member, the member for Essex. The government has made sure that the bill is basically squirreled away at the finance committee. It has not resurfaced, despite it having one hearing in the last session of Parliament, in which I participated. It has not seen the light of day. Jimmy Hoffa has probably seen more light of day than this bill in the last number of years.

It is very disturbing, because some seniors are being taxed extra. That is different to what they expected. They have had their lives put on hold. They have suffered significant consequences. In fact, some of them are dying. This is very shameful. We should be addressing it. However, this bill will only add an arbitration element for those particular victims of poor taxation policy. The shift happened and they got whacked twice. The private member's bill would rectify that by allowing the taxation system to be for only 50%. Without getting into technical details, it would have provided some equity.

I do want to touch on process, because I think it is important. I know that right now probably only a handful of Canadians are watching this as opposed to the Mulroney-Schreiber affair and the meeting going on right now, but this does affect people. It is important to set out for the record the concerns that we in the New Democratic Party have about why the Liberals and the Conservatives have rammed this through so quickly.

First of all, it is important to recognize that the bill originated in the unelected Senate. Senators are not elected. They are appointed by the Prime Minister, and in fact were by the former prime minister, who is having to explain right now how many bags of cash he took and why. If members recall, he actually loaded up the Senate at one particular point to force through the GST. The party that created the GST needed the Senate to push it forward. It is ironic that he is here today.

However, we have this bill today coming from an unelected house. Our side of the House, the New Democratic Party, has a concern about that.

What happened subsequently is really troubling. When the bill went to the international trade committee, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who represents our caucus, asked for witnesses to be brought forth and for some type of study related to the bill, which is normally what would happen on most committees.

I have been part of a number of different committees where we have moved quickly through clause by clause and so forth when there was a will and the support to do so, but when we have witnesses requested, we almost always have that consultation. That never happened. The Liberals joined with the Conservatives to block that.

The government does have some issues with regard to the tax treaty and we do want to have some of those things improved here, but there are some major unknowns and questions out there. I want to read from a communication I received. It was sent in confidence to me, so I cannot say from which legal firm it came, but it is a reputable Canadian legal firm that is giving its opinion on the tax treaty. I want to read what it has provided me in terms of the new protocol:

On September 21, 2007, a new protocol to the Treaty was signed between the federal governments of Canada and the United States and is expected to be ratified by both countries in 2008. The protocol adds a new provision under Article V of the Treaty (the “permanent establishment” article described above) to implement rules with respect to service income. Once ratified, under the protocol a Canadian company may create a permanent establishment if it provides services within the United States and meets certain thresholds. Thus, business profits associated with service activities could be subject to taxation--

(1135)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski:

Mr. Speaker, in regard to that presentation, I believe, unless I heard incorrectly, that my hon. colleague said he was reading from a document from a law firm. I wonder if he would care to table that.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The tabling convention applies to ministers, not members, so the point of order is laid to rest, so to speak. The hon. member for Windsor West can resume his speech.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse:

Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to appoint me as minister and if it would actually table its documents, maybe I would reciprocate. That is part of the privilege of the House: to keep democracy going in this process. I am going to finish reading the document. The end of the quotation is very important:

Thus, business profits associated with service activities could be subject to taxation for many Canadian companies. These rules are currently set to take effect January 1, 2010 if ratification occurs during 2008.

Therefore, what we have here is the situation of a service industry that could have new taxation added to it through this process. We know that right now there are some concerns with the service sector and the economy and we do not have a full economic analysis of it. That is what is troubling about this bill being brought forth in this manner.

There could be some very valuable elements to the treaty. I think there are. There are some general things that are very good, but at the same time, why do we not have those answers? I find that very difficult to accept, especially given that this is an opportunity to correct historically significant problems.

I also want to touch on the issue of social security and Canadians who have paid in the U.S., are doing so now and face extra taxation. I am going to read another very important letter that talks about the history of this change.

Once again, this bill is not going to address the issue of those Canadians who had the tax treaty altered on them. The government is going to send them to some arbitration process, which is not even described. It could take literally years. We have no idea. And that is if they win, let alone having to go through that and relive the whole situation. That is a real concern, because the government has a private member's bill from its own member for Essex, who has been pushing that issue, and the government has not even listened to him.

Why the government is not adjusting that specifically in the bill, I do not know. Why it is turning its back on many residents of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, I cannot understand. I want to read the letter for members because it describes, for the record, what has been happening to these ordinary Canadians. It describes what took place with the tax treaty and how it affects them and their lives. The letter comes from Mr. Craig Ridsdale and is entitled “Unfair Tax Laws Burden Seniors”. It states:

Many Canadian seniors across Canada have been sitting on their hands since 1997 waiting for the Liberal government to move forward on a pledge made to them to rectify a system of taxation that threatens to leave many of them, particularly low income seniors, in a very difficult financial situation.

In 1984, the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention Act was implemented, primarily to protect the citizens of both countries from being taxed twice on their pensions, be they Social Security in the States or the Canada (and Quebec) Pension Plan here in Canada. However, differences in our taxation systems (Canadians pay taxes when collecting benefits while Americans pay the taxes on their contributions) has meant that Canadians receiving Social Security benefits were being taxed twice.

A series of protocols to amend this bill have made matters even worse for many retirees. Specifically, the third protocol, implemented in 1995 and applicable for the 1996 fiscal year allowed the United States government to charge what amounted to a more than 25% withholding tax on Canadians' pensions. Previously, the second protocol to this treaty allowed only the country of residence to tax social security benefits. For many retired Canadians who paid into the American system over the span of their working lives, what this meant was that over one quarter of their income essentially disappeared overnight.

The fourth protocol, implemented after the disastrous third protocol, allows the Canadian government to tax 85 per cent of Social Security, an increase from the 50 per cent agreed upon in the 1984 act. It also provided the government with the latitude to reduce the 85 per cent limit which it has refused to do.

Since 2001, Canadians Asking for Social Security Equity (CASSE) have been lobbying the federal government to either restore the Second Protocol or at the least grandfather its provisions to include all seniors who were negatively affected by the Third Protocol. To this date nothing has been done.

It is also important that the current Secretary of State for Multiculturalism had a private member's bill on this back in 1998, so what is really troubling about this is that we have a pattern between the Liberals and Conservatives, who all have said that they want to fix the tax treaty.

Once again we are talking about pensioners, seniors, who are living in Canada. They worked abroad, they paid their taxes there and they paid their taxes at home, but when they actually got their social security benefits things changed and they now get taxed even more on those benefits. That is why the private member's bill to correct this would have been a more equitable situation. Why the government has not done that is unacceptable. This is a real hardship for many people.

(1140)

We have had testimony at the House finance committee by individuals affected by this. They have come forward and talked about people in their circle who have been fighting this and who have died and about how others have had to sell their homes and how others are having a hard time getting back to the quality of life they thought they were going to enjoy when they retired. That is important, because the human dignity aspect has been lost with regard to this taxation bill.

We were talking earlier about the member for LaSalle—Émard and his issues related to his steamships, to his company and the flag and so forth. This issue is so important. I remember that in Windsor when the member for LaSalle—Émard, as finance minister, was attending the Caboto club, one of the most memorable moments was the fact that he had to slip into the kitchen to avoid the demonstrations out front. He used the back door and walked through the kitchen to go to the event as opposed to meeting with the individuals who were affected by this taxation policy that had been changed.

There have been many statements made by Liberals and Conservatives both, who are fighting over this. Members of the NDP have been consistent on it. What is unfortunate is that it has not led to any changes. I cannot understand that. I cannot understand who in their right mind would want to create an arbitration process for seniors at a time when they need their issue addressed now.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was right to ask the government and its officials how much this tax treaty is going to cost. What they estimate is half a billion dollars over three years. That is what is going to be lost in terms of government revenue.

We do not know whether the banks are going to enjoy that money. We do not know who is going to be the real net beneficiary of that arrangement. What we do know is that to fix this historic problem related to seniors who had double taxation, and who were caught in this crossfire of tax treaty analysis and neglect through the United States negotiations, it would cost around $60 million.

Thus, we have $1 billion for that sector, which we do not even have a prescribed analysis from. The department said it would come back with more information. At the same time, it would cost around $60 million if we did not tax at an increased rate seniors who paid their social security in the United States.

That is bizarre, because we know from the evidence presented to us that those individuals are going to spend that money in this country. They are going to use it to get by. They are going to continue to renovate homes and to be in our communities more, and they are going to be able to pay off some of their debts. That is important, because that economic push comes to that collective group.

I cannot understand this. Maybe it has been the hostility. I went on a national campaign for a seniors' charter of rights, which passed in the House of Commons. The member for Hamilton Mountain did a terrific job and pushed the issue through, but we have not had full implementation of the charter. The House and the government have ignored seniors in many respects.

I do not know why they are motivated to move in this direction. In conclusion, I find it really frustrating that the Liberals have joined with the Conservatives on this issue to prevent debate, analysis and full due diligence.

We do want to see our tax treaties updated. We are not opposed to that. They are very beneficial in many respects. Living on the Canada-U.S. border as I do, I have spoken at length in the House of Commons about the Windsor-Detroit border and its importance. We are not opposed to going forward on this, but why, for heaven's sake, are we not doing it properly? Why is it so convenient to let this group of seniors be basically thrust to the side, forgotten and left out of the whole picture? Why is that being contemplated? Why is that being allowed?

Why have the Liberals joined with the Conservatives to prevent the debate about this to even take place? I do not understand that logic. I do not understand why they could not at least have some hearings to get to the root of this structure or maybe move an amendment to fix the situation.

It really shows the lack of influence, I think, of the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex and the whole area around there and of the Conservatives in southern Ontario. When they have a tax treaty this significant and an issue that has been a thorn in the side of the Liberals because they broke promise after promise on it, an issue that has been politically manipulated over the years, they have chosen not to do anything on it in this bill. That is remarkable in itself. It speaks to why the ineffective Conservative caucus of southern Ontario is basically being swallowed up by the oil companies, because the petroleum club is served only by the government.

(1145)

The Conservatives could not even get a minor tax treaty agreement passed to protect seniors as they had promised in their campaign. This shows disinterest. It also shows arrogance, which they have quickly adopted from the previous government. They are going to have to explain to people why they have to go through arbitration to get this fixed. This is going to be very traumatic.

It is a shame that we did not do the proper due diligence. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster wanted to bring forth witnesses to vet this so it could be a better bill and give us a better tax treaty. Most important, it would give us the chance to address historical problems that the House has never dealt with before.

(1150)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, whenever we deal with bills that come to us from the Senate, we feel an extra level of obligation to ensure they pass all the smell tests. There is a serious ethical challenge with the Senate in terms of its own conflict of interest guidelines and its ability to ensure that any of its legislation has not been unduly influenced by people with pecuniary interests.

I am referring to a very fascinating discussion I entered into with Mr. Jean Fournier of the Senate Ethics Office about the fact that the accountability gaps in its offices are so wide one could drive Mack trucks through.

Section 15.(1) of the Senate's own written accountability code says that senators can participate in debate on matters where they have financial interests, provided an oral declaration is made on the record prior to each intervention.

Section 15.(2) says senators can participate in debate on a matter where a family member has an interest, provided a declaration is first made orally on the record. Family members do not have to declare any kind of financial interests unless they have a direct contract with the government. Senators can sit as directors of boards of all major corporations and still participate in debates.

There is another fascinating loophole that senators have written for themselves. They can participate and influence any kind of financial interests as long as they declare it behind closed doors. Unless their cronies disagree, it does not have to be declared to the public. Most Canadians would find that quite shocking.

I was a school board trustee on a small town school board. Our conflict of interest guidelines were much more stringent. For example, it was impossible for any trustee to be part of any debate that had to do with any contract if we had any relative living anywhere in the province of Ontario involved in education, regardless of whether it was post-secondary or kindergarten. That was the standard we met as small town school board trustees.

Our friends in the Senate obviously have a problem writing accountability guidelines for themselves.

If the House wants me to table the letter that I am referring to, I would be more than happy to put it on the public record because people need to see that our friends in the Senate need basic remedial help in reforming themselves. They seem incapable of doing it on their own. The more light we shine on these grievous ethical lapses perhaps the better served we will be as a 21st century democracy.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, does he believe that any time the Senate gives us a bill that we should give it a bit of extra scrutiny to ensure that it passes the ethical standards test? Obviously, because the ethical bar is abysmally low in the Senate, questions are raised.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse:

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question because it sheds some light on a charade that is happening here; that is, the Prime Minister's campaign to reform the Senate.

Here we have a bill where the member for Timmins—James Bay did a good job of outlining some of the conflict issues. Yes, we can drive a truck through it. I am familiar with trucks in my riding. There are 10,000 of them per day that go through, and they would all go through in a single day.

I can tell members that it is really important to connect the dots on this one because we have a Prime Minister who seems to be fighting with the Senate, proposing reform and wanting greater accountability. Yet, when we have a bill that comes from the Senate the government immediately adopts it. It does not amend it, and then it blocks witnesses from actually coming forth. That is the really interesting aspect of it.

So, when we apply what has happened in this particular case to Bill S-2 and the rhetoric of the Prime Minister on wanting to actually reform the Senate, it does not match up.

He can have his tirades here in the House all he wants about the Senate, but it does not really apply to actual practical work taking place here. What is really frustrating about this is that we do not have that level of accountability that we should on this tax treaty bill. It does not matter who gets caught in the crossfire; it is just a matter of expediency to get this off the table and to move it forward.

That is what is really unacceptable. We have a small group of citizens in particular who are really getting hammered by this not addressing the social security issue and the double taxation, and sending them to some arbitration system. Many Canadians out there are thinking that it is great. They get to go to some government arbitrations to fight for something that should have been fixed for them. That is actually terrible. On top of that is the fact that these are seniors.

The Conservatives are going to create a whole new system. It is ironic. They are creating a whole new system as opposed to just fixing a simple problem. Why are they doing it? Their motivation is hard to believe. We know the bill is going to cost around $500 million in three years. That is the estimate from the department. We know that to fix a simple problem for seniors would cost $60 million but the government refuses. I do not understand that logic.

(1155)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

* * *

Canada Elections Act

* * *

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (verification of residence), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC)

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think I heard any nays, but we will try it. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

In my opinion the motion is carried unanimously.

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in the House and speak to this bill at the third reading stage.

Bill C-18, quite frankly, fixes a problem incurred with voting. To provide a bit of context and a brief history of the reason for Bill C-18 coming before the House, it was because the House originally passed Bill C-31 which basically dealt with voter identification.

The intent of Bill C-31 was so that individuals who wished to cast ballots in federal elections would be required to produce identification showing their name and residency. This seemed to me to be a common sense provision because, as we all know, though Canadians have the right to vote, they have to be, number one, Canadian citizens and, number two, reside in the riding in which they wish to cast their ballot.

We wanted to put provisions in place that required individuals to produce identification, verifying that they lived in the ridings in which they wished to cast ballots. That was the genesis of Bill C-31. However, there was a problem. Bill C-31 stated that in determining proof of residency, voters had to prove their residential addresses.

This, of course, was debated in committee. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada came before committee to analyze the bill. No one in the committee nor the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada recognized the fact that the term “residential address” or “civic address” would in fact exclude a great many Canadians.

Approximately one million Canadians, in fact, do not have residential or civic addresses. These are primarily rural Canadians living in ridings in Canada who would normally be allowed to vote, but instead of having residential addresses have post office boxes or rural route numbers or a land description, which would be their identification of residency.

Bill C-31 inadvertently excluded everyone who did not have a residential address. As I said just a few moments ago, approximately one million rural Canadians were in that category. If people lived in rural Canada, whether it be Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec, and had rural route numbers or post office box numbers instead of street addresses, with the passage of Bill C-31 they would be denied their right or ability to vote.

This flaw in Bill C-31 was first discovered in late September, early October, by the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. Following three byelections held in September in Quebec, the Chief Electoral Officer did a review of the voting practices in Quebec during those three byelections and during that examination discovered this flaw in Bill C-31 dealing with residential addresses.

He immediately informed the government, which, in turn, immediately took corrective action and the result is what we have before us today, Bill C-18. It very simply remedies the glitch found in Bill C-31 by stating that any individual who produces proper identification and whose residency information on that identification is consistent with the information on the electoral lists will then be eligible to vote.

In other words, to put it very clearly and graphically, if an individual has a driver's licence that says he or she resides at post office box 123 anywhere in Canada and the electoral list confirms that this individual resides at post office box 123 anywhere in Canada, or to put it another way, if the driver's licence information and the information on the electoral list are consistent, that individual can then vote and that remedied the situation.

(1200)

That is why we introduced the bill, that is why the bill is before us today and that is why we wish, as a government, to ensure the bill passes and is delivered to the Senate today. We hope then that our friends in the Senate will pass it quickly and give it royal assent before the end of this calendar year.

The urgency is that there may be byelections or a general election very soon in the new year. No one knows the certainty of a general election, but we do know byelections will have to be called before the end of this month. We want to ensure that all Canadians in rural Canada, who had been disenfranchised inadvertently, are now back on the voters list, that they have the eligibility requirements correct and that they will be able to cast ballots.

I know almost all parties in the House, almost all members in the House, support this legislation. The exception being some members of the New Democratic Party. I find it interesting that their opposition is not really with Bill C-18, but with Bill C-31.

During debate and during committee examination of Bill C-31, the NDP primarily was concerned that many Canadians could potentially be disenfranchised because of the identification requirements contained in the bill. Specifically, the NDP was concerned because of the homeless. Many homeless people, perhaps the vast majority of them, do not possess identification. This was a legitimate concern raised by the members of the NDP. Their solution to that was quite simply that identification requirements contained in Bill C-31 should be eliminated, that people who did not possess proper identification as to proof of identity and residence should still be allowed to vote if they signed an oath or some kind of a declaration at a various polling station on voting day.

While I recognize there will be some individuals in the category of the homeless or maybe other transient individuals who do not have proper identification, the committee determined in its wisdom, and I supported this decision, that the public interest was best served if individuals were required to produce identification.

I believe it is a common sense approach. After all, if people cannot identify themselves, if they cannot prove they actually live in a particular riding, why then should they be allowed to vote? We were concerned about voter fraud. In fact, Bill C-31 was called the voter integrity bill. It was merely intended to ensure the integrity of the voting system, so everyone who wished to vote in a particular riding across Canada would have to demonstrate they actually resided in that riding. I think that is a reasonable approach to take. Hence, Bill C-31 was passed.

The opposition to Bill C-18 from my colleagues in the NDP has really nothing to do with Bill C-18. It goes back to their opposition to Bill C-31. Up to this point, they have been trying to, in my opinion, unduly delay passage of Bill C-18 because of their opposition to the provisions contained in Bill C-31.

However, I am very pleased to see Bill C-18 before us today. I believe we will see passage of this very important bill later today. I also hope, as I mentioned a few moments ago, that our friends and colleagues in the Senate, in their wisdom, will give speedy passage to Bill C-18.

(1205)

I will reiterate that the bill was brought forward as a corrective measure to ensure that rural Canadians, who had been inadvertently disenfranchised by the provisions contained in Bill C-31, were dealt with in an appropriate manner to ensure they would have the ability to vote in the next general election.

There is nothing more complicated than that. There is nothing more detailed than that. It is merely a simple bill designed to correct an inequity that occurred.

In dealing with the bill in an expeditious manner, as we have, we have demonstrated that Parliament and the committee system within Parliament can work when all members determine that partisan interests should be set aside and the greater good be addressed. Even though there have been disagreements at committee, and I am sure we will still see disagreements to some extent in the debate today, at the end of the day objections will have been duly noted but the bill will pass and for good reason.

I do not want to stand in the House and say that a wrong was not corrected. We have the ability to correct, but we chose not to for whatever reasons. I believe most Canadians would vehemently disagree with that.

While Bill C-18 perhaps should not have been necessary, it was done so to correct an unintended consequence as a result of the passage of Bill C-31.

(1210)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-18 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc supports the principle underlying the bill. The House of Commons passed Bill C-31, which modified the Canada Elections Act. The bill was needed to try to address all questions that Quebeckers and Canadians might have about eligibility to vote.

For the past several years, the federal government's way of holding elections made it practically impossible to guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt that voters were who they claimed to be. That is why we needed Bill C-31, which was passed in February 2007. I will summarize the bill because that is what gave rise to Bill C-18. Sometimes, the government comes up with solutions to problems that have been around for decades. Sometimes there are little problems with those solutions. The problem we are trying to fix with Bill C-18 is one of the little problems caused by Bill C-31.

Why did we want to adopt Bill C-31, and what was its purpose? From now on, people wishing to vote in a federal election will have to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, that shows their name and home address. Voters who do not have photo identification will have to provide two acceptable pieces of identification to establish their identity and their home address. The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for publishing a list of acceptable pieces of identification that voters can show at the polling station.

I will read that list out shortly. The Chief Electoral Officer released it for the byelections that took place this fall in a number of places, including Quebec. Several types of identification may be used by individuals who do not have government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license. As I said, voters can present two pieces of identification that appear on the published list.

Potential voters who do not have two acceptable pieces of identification will be required to declare under oath that they are the person they claim to be. They must also be vouched for by a registered elector. The objective of Bill C-31 was simple. It required a government-issued piece of photo ID, such as a driver's licence. Failing that, it required two pieces of ID from the list supplied by the chief electoral officer—I discussed this earlier—which was published during the byelections in Quebec this fall. If a person could not establish his identity, he had to take an oath in the presence of a person who was eligible to vote, who had a piece of ID and who knew the potential voter.

We thought this seemed appropriate and perfectly enforceable. We did not see a problem with doing things this way. Once again, I will provide the list of original pieces of identification that could be presented:

Health card, social insurance number card, birth certificate, driver’s licence, Canadian passport, certificate of Indian status, certificate of Canadian citizenship or citizenship card, credit/debit card with elector name, Canadian Forces identity card, Veterans Affairs Canada health card, employee card issued by employer, old age security identification card, public transportation card, student ID card, library card, liquor identification card, Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec card, hospital card, fishing licence, wildlife identification card, hunting licence, firearm acquisition card/firearm possession card, outdoors card and licences, provincial/territorial identification card, Local Community Service Centre card (CLSC).

(1215)

Other original documents can also be produced, for example, a credit card statement or bank statement, a utility bill such as a residential telephone or cable television bill or an electricity, gas or water bill, a local property tax assessment, a school, college or university report card or transcript, a residential lease, a residential mortgage statement or agreement, a Canada Child Tax Benefit statement, an income statement or income tax assessment notice, an insurance policy, a government cheque or government cheque stub with the elector’s name, a T4E statement of employment insurance benefits, a Canada Pension Plan statement of contributions or old age security statement, a statement of benefits from a provincial workplace health and safety board, a statement of direct deposit for a provincial occupational injury or disability support program, a vehicle ownership or vehicle insurance card, or an attestation of residence issued by the responsible authorities such as shelters, soup kitchens, student or senior residences, long-term care facilities, aboriginal reserves or work camps.

The list of pieces of identification is very long, therefore, and a person must produce two of them if he does not have a government-issued piece of photo ID. It enables electors to find supporting documents almost anywhere, but if they still cannot, they can go to a polling station and take an oath in the presence of someone who knows the person, has met the requirements and already voted.

We thought, therefore, that we had covered everything when Bill C-31 passed. However, there was one little problem. The pieces of identification had to contain the elector’s residential address, and that was the problem. Almost all of us have addresses with a street name and number. However, there is still one situation that I myself saw when I was the mayor of a small town. It was only in the late 1990s that my town, Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix, got street names in order to have numbers. This was a requirement of the Government of Quebec, which was forcing most of the towns and small communities to have street names. It was expensive because we had to get names through the Commission de toponymie, prepare announcements, make poles and signs and so forth. That is why it had never been done.

So the municipalities of Quebec all entered the modern age. However, in a few of them and in some other regions of Canada, there are still no street names. As a result, the residential address of some people is just Rural Route 1, for example, without any street number or anything because there is none.

It was at the time of the byelections in Quebec, if not before, that we noticed that some electors had this kind of address. Although there were not very many, there could be a problem because they did not have a residential address in the prescribed form.

The purpose of Bill C-18, which we are debating today, is simply to allow a person to vote if he or she has two pieces of identification with the same information on them, such as Rural Route 1 or Rural Route 2. The purpose of the bill is simply to take this reality in a number of communities all across Canada into account.

I have some figures here. Elections Canada tells us that there are about 1,012,989 electors who do not have a residential address that meets the requirements of the Canada Elections Act as set forth in Bill C-31.

The list of electors is compiled by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is certainly well aware that some people have always provided an address that consists of a rural route. When the census is taken, people provide addresses which indicate “rural route 1” or “rural route 2,” and the name of municipality. The chief electoral officer has reported that some 1,012,989 electors have such an address.

In Nunavut, for example, 80% of residents do not have a personal address that conforms to the provisions of Bill C-31 that was adopted in February 2007. In Saskatchewan, some 189,000 electors are in that position, which is 27% of all electors; a significant proportion. In Ontario, this condition affects about 150,000 electors. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it amounts to 23% of the electors. In Quebec, the number is 15,836 electors, or 0.27% of the population, who could be faced with this same problem.

When the chief electoral officer recognized this problem, he drew it to attention of the various political parties. The purpose of Bill C-18 is to correct this anomaly. In doing so, those people who live on rural routes or who only have access to postal boxes—whose address might be “post office box 36” or “post office box 267” and the name of the municipality—which is not a residential address under the requirements of Bill C-31, that is to say, including a street number and street name and the rest, may in future present to Elections Canada workers two pieces of identification that prove their address is the same as the address that appears on the list of electors.

(1220)

That will finally correct the situation of those 1,012,989 electors and it will conform to the new Bill C-31.

What is difficult to understand is the position of the other parties. I say the other parties but there is one party that is opposed to Bill C-18, the New Democratic Party, which was also opposed to Bill C-31. The argument advanced by the NDP is that we should preserve the traditional practice where there was practically no requirement for any piece of identification. In fact, a person did not need any identification in order to vote. It was enough to make a declaration under oath.

Obviously, there have been complaints for decades. Among others, in Quebec, for a long time there has been an angry outcry over this manner of voting in federal elections. In Quebec—I am referring to the province—a bill almost identical in every detail to Bill C-31 was introduced in the National Assembly in February 2007. Quebec had already decided to deal with this voting issue in order to ensure that the people who vote are the people who are entitled to vote. That is simply what it amounts to. It is a case of avoiding electoral fraud and underhanded practices.

It is difficult to understand how the parties of this House did not see this. Indeed, it is possible some people might have some minor problems. We talked about homeless people. We would like to work with all parties to resolve the problem facing people with no address. This is one way of proceeding. One way of resolving this for such individuals involves having them go to vote with another eligible voter, someone who knows them and can vouch for them. We would like to work to resolve this problem, but we cannot throw away an entire system that has been established to prevent fraud, toss it all away and return to archaic voting procedures that made it nearly impossible to confirm the identity of most voters.

Why not tackle a specific problem that affects perhaps a few thousand voters, without returning to the previous system, which, after all, does not guarantee any security, provides many opportunities for fraud against a vast majority of voters, and focus instead on solving a problem that affects a small number of voters?

Today, with Bill C-31, we are resolving a problem that affects a million voters. That is a significant number. We do not understand why the NDP will not support this.

When Bill C-31 was drafted, no one, not even the legislative staff who prepared it for the government, saw the problem posed by rural addresses and post office boxes. It only became apparent in practice. At that time, a bill was introduced to resolve the problem facing people who do not have a residential address that complies with the provisions of Bill C-31.

First of all, I would like those citizens listening to us to realize that their address is not the issue. They all have a residential address, whether it is a post office box, rural route or other, even though they may not have a street number. In Bill C-31, for the purposes of the Election Act, the residential address had to indicate a street number with a street name, rural route, or concession for it to be recognized as a personal address. When we refer to number 2 or 200 or 2250 on a street or concession, we are speaking of a personal address. When we refer to rural route 2 or a post office box, then it is much more difficult to locate the individual. It is not a personal address. In the case of a post office box, the mail is addressed directly to the post office or to a post office box, which is not necessarily located at the property address. The purpose of Bill C-18 was to correct that.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We are on the eve of a federal election, which will probably take place in the spring. We do not want citizens to be denied the right to vote. When voters arrive with their identification, election workers may not allow them to vote because the address on their identification—even if the same as the address recorded on the electoral lists—would not be recognized as a personal address since it does not contain a street number. They could be refused the right to vote under the pretext that the election workers are not sure that they are who they say they are and they would be asked to swear an oath.

(1225)

There is a problem, however, and the Chief Electoral Officer has pointed it out very clearly. It is all very well that someone who has a residential address can vouch for them. However, when someone lives in an area, such as Nunavut, where 80% of the territory has no addresses in the required format, even our neighbour cannot vouch for us, because our neighbour also cannot vote because his or her address does not meet the requirements of Bill C-31.

This is a fairly significant problem for part of Quebec, where It affects 15,836 electors, but even more so, for 1,019,000 electors across Canada. That is quite a large number. We hope that this bill will pass as quickly as possible. That should be done before the end of this session, if possible, so that the Senate can give it royal assent. That will allow the bill to come into force for the next federal election, which, as I was saying, will not be called much later than the spring budget, in my opinion.

Obviously, given that situation, there is some real urgency. Our electors should not have to face problems when they go to vote. We saw this to a very small extent, and forgive me for repeating myself, in the byelections in Quebec. As I said, those 15,000 electors throughout Quebec who were affected in the byelections held in Quebec this fall, do not amount to very many people. In a general election, however, the problem would affect a million electors, or nearly 4% of the population. That could cause a bit of anxiety in some communities.

We would not want things to be difficult for election workers. It is already not easy to find election workers. They are often people who are donating their time. Although the government may view the remuneration as generous, when we look at the number of hours they spend getting training and working on election day, the money the Chief Electoral Officer pays does not amount to a lot.

As well, if the voters are putting additional pressure on the election workers because they are unhappy that their address, the one they have always had and use every day, does not let them vote because it does not comply with Bill C-31, their wrath is going to be directed at the entire voting system and the entire electoral system, but in particular the election workers. Those workers do not deserve to have problems with electors who might—quite justifiably—complain. They have all their pieces of identification and their bills. We heard the list that I read out earlier. They have always received their hydro bills, their public utility bills or whatever at that address. But when an elector goes to the polling station, they are told that they do not have a individual street number, no personal address, and that, therefore, they have to find some other way of proving that they are in fact the right person. Everyone understands the issue and can probably imagine what this will look like on the ground. I would not want election workers to be put into this situation.

Consequently, I hope that all the parties, including the NDP, will appreciate the urgency, given that a federal election could be triggered as soon as the next budget is brought down. We need to act fast and call on Parliament to pass this bill by the end of the session, so that the Senate can give it royal assent. Then, this bill will be in effect when the next election campaign takes place.

To those who may be wondering whether the Chief Electoral Officer will have enough time to act, I say that there will be no problem, because the addresses are already on the voters lists. These addresses consist of a post office box number in a municipality or a rural route without a house number. Consequently, the Chief Electoral Officer simply has to tell election officials that when someone provides photo identification or two other pieces of identification with an address that matches the address on the voters list, the officials can assume it is the right person.

This will prevent 1,019,000 voters from having problems, causing congestion at some polling stations and making scenes for election officials. I repeat, these election officials are not paid well enough for what they do. Some will say people are never paid well enough. We have to consider the number of hours they put in, all the time they spend on site. They have to arrive early, before the polls open. Now, the polls are open for 12 hours. When the polls close, they have to put in as much time as is needed, because in some places, the election results are close.

Obviously, this will not be the case in Quebec, because the Bloc Québécois is going to sweep the province. But I hope the other areas of Canada do not have to deal with close results.

(1230)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, there are a few items the member raised which need some correction.

He indicated that the New Democrats were opposed to Bill C-31. As it turns out, it was with very good reason. The bill had some serious problems and now we have Bill C-18 in order to fix the problems in Bill C-31. Part of the solution simply does not address some of the concerns that we raised in Bill C-31.

The solution around having the ability to have one person vouch for one potential voter is just not workable. We talked about this in the past. There are a number of homeless people who often have contact with a street worker or case worker and that person will know 10, 15, or 20 people. If those 10, 15, or 20 people have to go out and find 10, 15 or 20 individuals to vouch for them, they simply will lose their opportunity to vote.

In a recent report, Miloon Kothari indicated that the Government of Canada and provincial governments keep very poor statistics on homeless people. His estimate, and many academics feel that this is grossly underrepresented, is that there are least 150,000 homeless people on the streets of Canada.

Is the member saying that 150,000 people in this country simply should not have the right to vote because they cannot find 150,000 people to vouch for them if they do not have appropriate ID?

The second issue that has come up regards first nations. The member for Timmins—James Bay has raised this issue. Many first nations communities are remote and rural communities. Many first nations do not have the required identification. Some band members do not have status cards. There is a long convoluted process. If they lose their status card, they have to reapply to the Department of Indian Affairs to replace it. Sometimes a band council could provide a letter to vouch for someone, but in many cases it is very difficult for people to get the required identification.

Is the member saying it is okay for a minimum of 150,000 people to potentially lose their right to vote? Is he saying it is okay for first nations, who only in the 1960s gained the right to vote in Canada, to be shut out from voting?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise:

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at how the NDP handles these matters.

If my colleague had bothered to inform herself of the identification allowed by the Chief Electoral Officer, she would know that the list includes, among other things, an attestation of residence issued by the responsible authorities, such as shelters, soup kitchens, student or senior residences, long-term care facilities, aboriginal reserves, work camps, and so forth.

This is not rocket science. Out of the 150,000 people the hon. member is referring to, most have some form of documentation that they present at soup kitchens. As for the rest, I agree with her, they will need someone to vouch for them. One thing is certain, for anyone, homeless or not, living in a remote area, there are not as many polling stations as there are in Montreal, where there are thousands. If the person votes at the polling station nearest to where they usually live, there will be someone who knows them who would be more than happy to vouch for them.

The NDP wants us to go back to the way things were before, when, in order to vote, one simply had to swear their identity under oath. That was the whole point of Bill C-31 and everything Quebec has done in the past decade or so to deal with electoral fraud. If the NDP wants to go back to the days of electoral fraud, that is up to them.

I think we should do something about the 150,000 people for whom this causes a problem. We have to have a more thorough look at how we can get them to vote. They all should have a chance to vote. The fact remains that a person without identification, whether they are homeless or not and living near a polling station, can still swear an oath in front of someone who knows them. I am sure that many people know those who stay in a certain sector, even if they are homeless.

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague talk about Bill C-31 on the right to vote. Fraud is a huge issue. In Quebec, many dead people voted in the 1995 referendum.

I would therefore like to know the opinion of the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. What does he think about using voter cards to avoid all that? No, I am not joking. What does he think about voter cards, which the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois have been demanding for years?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise:

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 represents change. My colleague will understand that 10 years ago, Quebec adopted a bill to avoid voter fraud that is similar to the bill before us. We are therefore one step closer to the day when, we hope, there will be voter cards. Voter cards would allow voters in any province or territory to vote even if they move. With voter cards, voting would be much simpler and easier. In Quebec, the voter card could be used for school board elections as well as municipal, provincial and federal elections. It would prevent voter fraud.

That is the goal of any democracy: to make sure no one manipulates the democratic process or uses it for other purposes. That is the goal Quebec is trying to achieve.

Gradually, we are evolving. The legislation that has been in effect in Quebec for 10 years is being put in place here in Ottawa. We are helping our democracy move forward.

I thank my colleague for her question.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder:

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that I have read the list of required identification. I also know that many homeless people simply do not have identification, nor do they have a residence. The list is lovely, but if people do not have the identification, then they do not have it.

I want to come back to the member's statements around fraud. One of the things the New Democrats have talked about is that both bills, Bills C-31 and C-18, were using a sledgehammer on a problem that was virtually non-existent.

According to the Chief Electoral Officer, in 2006 there was one case of fraud in the entire country, in 2004 there were zero cases, and in 2000 there were three cases. If the member is aware of this apparently large amount of fraud happening, I wonder if he has brought it to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer. According to the Chief Electoral Officer's records, there simply are not that many cases out there.

(1240)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Laframboise:

Mr. Speaker, earlier my colleague from Compton—Stanstead gave the example of the 1995 referendum in Quebec, which led to many complaints to the Chief Electoral Officer. If only because of this one instance in the life of the democracy that is Quebec, all the great democrats of this world should make sure no one ever tries to manipulate the democratic process by allowing people to usurp other people's right to vote. Quite simply, for the good of democracy, we must make sure that never happens.

Once again, I am having trouble understanding why the NDP does not support these measures. Perhaps this is how the NDP conducts elections. It will have to live with that. That did not do the NDP much good in the last election, but we will see what the future holds. We will keep a closer eye on the NDP and how it conducts elections.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I normally preface all my speeches by saying that I am very proud to rise in the House and speak to a bill; however, I am not very proud to rise and speak to this bill, because we are speaking about the increasingly dismal trade of politics as it is practised in Ottawa.

When someone does a job badly, and it is found out that the person has done it badly, it is incumbent upon the person to fix it. I have done many different jobs over the years and I have been proud of all of them.

When I was a dishwasher, if the cook did not like the way I washed the dishes, they came back to me right away and I would do them again, otherwise I was not going to hold that job.

A house builder would not get away with putting up a wall wrong. The foreman would come in and determine whether the wall was built right or wrong. If it was built wrong, it would be torn down and rebuilt.

As a musician, boy oh boy, musicians know what would happen if they did not satisfy the crowd on a Saturday night. They would hear about it right then and there and if they were going to keep those gigs, they had to improve.

What is our job here in Ottawa? Our job is to bring forth legislation. We have to do due diligence on legislation. It is incumbent upon all of us at a certain point to check our partisan hats. We need to examine proposed legislation and bring perspectives from our regions. Each of us represents different areas of the country. There are many different political and cultural points of view. We have to look at legislation and determine its efficacy, because at the end of the day, it will become the law of the land. That is our foremost job in the House, and it has to be undertaken with the utmost seriousness.

When we deliver a law that has failed badly, it is incumbent upon all of us in the House to see what went wrong, to step back and see how the mistake happened in order that we can rectify it and take pride in our work.

Unfortunately, as I said, this is becoming an increasingly dismal trade because it seems that when a mistake is made, we do not look at what went wrong. We turn it over to our spin-meisters and our wedge issue people to try to re-write history and what happened. The path to understand how the mistake was made becomes deliberately obscured. When it becomes deliberately obscured, we are doing a disservice, because our fundamental job is to represent the best interests of this country in terms of bringing forward legislation that is applicable, that is just, and that in the field will actually help our citizens.

With respect to Bill C-18, I set out with some high hopes that we would rectify the problems of a badly flawed bill, BillC-31. My colleagues from the Bloc say that Bill C-31 was brought in to escape issues of widespread fraud. The committee examined issues of fraud because fraud is a very serious threat to the health of democracy. Fraud has to be sought out wherever it exists. It cannot be sought out with vague old wives' tales or writing on the bathroom wall. It has to be proven. It is incumbent upon the Chief Electoral Officer to hunt down any cases of fraud.

The committee looked at the issue of fraud and found one case which occurred in 2006. There were no cases in 2004. There were three cases in 2000. That is not to make light of electoral fraud. We trusted the Chief Electoral Officer to investigate and study any allegations out there. We came back with Bill C-31.

At the time, New Democrats were concerned that people would be disenfranchised. At the end of the day, regardless of what my colleagues in the Bloc say, the right to vote is an inalienable right in Canada. It is enshrined in the charter as one of our fundamental rights. We have to ensure that when people have the right to vote, they are not blocked from voting.

When Bill C-31 came out, lo and behold, we found there were not one but two major problems with it. A million rural residents were not going to be able to vote, thanks to a lack of due diligence in the committee's work. Then there was the issue of the wearing of veils when voting. Now we have Bill C-6. We have a bill that became law and within a few months we already have to have two other band-aid laws to repair the fundamental flaws in the first bill. When we look at Bill C-18, we have to ask ourselves whether it will fix the problem and if it will do it right. That is our obligation at the end of the day.

(1245)

As referred to many times, the discussion on Bill C-18, is to fix a problem for rural residents. When anyone raises the issue of homeless people, there seems to be a fundamental balancing act. Do we worry about a few thousand homeless people in Vancouver or do we worry about a million residents in rural Canada?

However, nowhere in Bill C-18 does it speak to the issue of rural residents. It speaks to an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the verification of residents. The verification of residents is the key element that leads to the potential disenfranchisement, as the electoral officer said in one case, of a million rural Canadians, including urban Canadians, first nations Canadians and then homeless people.

I will not to focus too much on Bill C-31, but we need to know where we came from in order to know why we still have a fundamental problem. I know members of the House who were on the committee voted for it, but after questioned how this happened, that they must have missed a translation at third reading.

They did not miss it. They were not interested. We spoke about it. We brought forward witnesses who said that there would be problems with the ability of people to meet the onerous requirements of Bill C-31.

I spoke to Bill C-31. I am not patting myself on the back, but perhaps I was just too lazy to get the records of what everyone else said. However, I know what I said, so I will bring it up, and it is fairly straightforward.

When we discussed Bill C-31, I spoke of the problems we had in the rural parts of my riding and in other communities with mailboxes and the difficulties people would have in voting. That was on the record for many people. I spoke of the issues of photo IDs and the fact that on the James Bay coast, an area I represent, up to 30% of the communities did not even have health cards.

We help them fill out the health cards. The Ontario government does not even bother to do photographs for first nations people. It sends them little trillium stickers because it is cheaper than getting photo IDs. Therefore, we had raised the issue of the problems of identification in these isolated areas.

I had said at that time that I would invite anybody to go into Fort Albany and ask people their addresses. People do not have street addresses and that is how they get by. We find in many of our communities, they simply do not even have the most basic registration that is being required.

We were bringing forward the perspective of our regions and our constituents to bring a sense of reality to the debate. At the time, I remember it was ignored and overlooked. In fact, there was a fair amount of snickering. The old NDP was standing in the way of progress again.

I will refer to evidence at committee at the time from the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, which was ignored. Witnesses said that the voting changes to Bill C-31 were:

—based on the assumption that the majority of Canadian electors live in urban centres. Until government services are made available in an equitable manner to our people living in remote communities and the amendments to the act reflect the realities of the lives of our people...I suggest that the committee, if possible, visit some of our communities to better understand the challenges we face in our role as Canadian citizens.

They were ignored.

Suddenly now we have a situation where there is an embarrassment that the bill has failed. Therefore, we were all called together to try to fix it. The issue of fixing it is paramount, but again we have to do due diligence. How do we do due diligence? We have to bring forward witnesses. This is not stalling. This is ensuring that we do not fall into the same mistakes that were made.

The process we went through with the bill was a very dismal, petty process. The Liberal whip tried to push the vote through without any witnesses. How can we go through with no witnesses when 80% of the people in Nunavut have been told they are not enfranchised to vote? Would we not think it would be incumbent upon us in the House, after having made such a colossal error, to at least have a witness who can speak to the bill and say whether or not it addresses the problem? However, no, it was a desire to get this thing done and out of the road by Christmas.

(1250)

I brought forward four witnesses to speak to the bill because I felt the issue was whether the vouching system would work with what we had to address. There is no problem with the rest of the amendments to Bill C-18. We support the need to get this thing fixed, but the issue is whether vouching, in the way it is laid out, will be a practical, realistic solution to the problem.

We had four credible witnesses. There was a fifth witness, and I do not know where he had come from, but he was allowed to speak as well. They were given two minutes each to give their perspective on the bill. They were interrupted many times. They were cut off at the end. At the end of the day the chair basically told them they did not know what they were talking about.

I found that quite a shocking and sad testimony. Whether we agree with witnesses in committee or not, they come forward so they can given us a perspective and we can test their points of view. We are legislators, so when a witnesses come, whether they represent what we think is the most far out solution, our role is to test them, to ask them the fundamental questions to see if what they have brought forward to us stands the test of reason. That is how we make legislation.

Ian Boyko, from the Canadian Federation of Students, came forward. In his testimony, he said that to have only two minutes to address the problems with the bill and the vouching for ten of thousands of students who would be disenfranchised, he could not even begin to do it. He said that he would take questions, but nobody asked him a one.

I have never seen anything like this. I have never seen such a lack of interest. The head of the Canadian Federal of Students came to a committee and stated that tens of thousands of university students would be ineligible to vote because Bill C-18 would not address the issues they faced and nobody asked questions.

It is a funny situation when we sit in our committee and talk about encouraging young people to vote and how we can find ways to do that. Yet when they came to speak to us, nobody even had a question for them. They wanted it through.

Another astounding statement was from Jim Quail from the British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre. He said that even if the changes went in, the changes that will address some of the issues we face, 700,000 urban residents would still not possibly meet the test. This is based on what the electoral officer had provided previously, and this does not include the other million people. That is based on 5% who would not meet those requirements because they have moved or whatever.

We heard in our committee on a previous bill that 12% to 15% of the voters in Australia now voted by declaration because of the continual movement in urban areas of people moving in and out or people who do not know anyone. Anyone who has an urban riding is well used to this. Even in the urban part of some of my communities, when I go into a neighbourhood six months after an election, it is almost like a completely different group of people in there. Sometimes I wonder if I am walking down the wrong street. However, a major mobility is happening across the western world.

Australia has identified that 15% of the people now vote by declaration. In declaration voting they swear and oath. There is no way to get them on the voters list. We do not have the old style days when we went out and updated the voting list so we ensured people were on there.

Even when we have the voting list, it is not up to date. Some people have tried to do a mail-out and have received calls from people, cranky as all heck, because the person no longer lives at that address or they have been divorced for years so why would a Christmas card be sent that address. We know the problems with the electoral list.

I saw that recently in Ontario. My wife and I went to vote and, lo and behold, she was not on the electoral list, and the house is in her name. I do not know how that happened, but people who trusts the computers that generate the Elections Canada lists put themselves in much higher hands than I would.

(1255)

What we see is a problem of people who go to vote and are suddenly not on the list, or people who have moved to places where they do not know people. At the end of the day, they have a right to vote.

Jim Quail said that there would be 700,000 based on what the Elections Canada officer said. He could have been blowing smoke with these claims, but our job as legislators is to test him, question him and engage him. If we think these numbers are wrong, we have to test them. That is the only way we can bring forward legislation. Nobody was interested in what he had to say because members wanted the vote to be over.

This is the same pattern that happened with the previous bill. We end up in a situation where we have not done the due diligence, where we have not answered the fundamental question of whether this will work. That is what the legislation has to be able to prove. It has to prove it will work and ensure that the people, who have a right to vote, are able to vote. If we have not answered those questions satisfactorily, then we have failed in our jobs.

We certainly failed the job on Bill C-31. The problem with Bill C-18 is this. Having not answered the questions of why students will be disenfranchised, or will 700,000 urban residents be affected and how many of the 150,000 homeless people may not be able to vote, we have a serious problem.

The solution being offered is a one voucher system. At face value, it seems a reasonable solution to have someone vouch for another person. I do not have a problem with the concept, but when we make legislation, we have to establish laws that are applicable in the field.

They always say that the camel was a horse designed by a committee. We have had three and four hump camels coming out of our committees because there is such a distinct lack of reality between what we talk about in committee, which is the reality of politics, and what we see in the field. We are all in this business of politics, so we know what the reality is when we go to the voting booths and how the individual poll clerks identify what is acceptable and what is not.

I know a man in Ontario who has lived in the same rural route his whole life. When he went to vote, he was told he was not on the list. He produced his passport and was told a passport was not an acceptable piece of identification. It would get him into Saudi Arabia, but it would not allow him to vote in Ontario. Is this part of the Ontario elections act or is this how they interpret the act? We see the problems in each of these areas.

At the end of the day, the question is whether it works as a piece of legislation. Say I am a student who leaves Timmins—James Bay to go school at the University of Ottawa. After arriving there, I want to vote because the election is on September 15. When I go to vote, I am told I have to have a person vouch for me. What if my neighbour is not there that day or has already voted, then I have to wait on him or I cannot vote.

The example in a rural area is what if I know two people who moved in, but I am only allowed to vouch for one of them? Vouching, at the end of the day, is not practical so we have to go back to the issue of a declaration. Otherwise, people will continue to be disenfranchised. That is why I believe we have failed to do our job with this bill.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

If members have questions and comments, they can do so after the recorded division.

* * *

Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007

The House resumed from December 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 and to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, 2007, be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

It being 1 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-28.

Call in the members.

* * *

(1325)

And the Clerk having announced the results of the vote:

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Karen Redman:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Despite his best efforts, the member for West Nova did not make it to the chamber before the question was put. Despite the fact that he would love to be registered as voting against the bill, his vote should probably not be counted.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yvon Godin:

Mr. Speaker, they are missing about another 100 members in the House.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gerald Keddy:

Mr. Speaker, that would be one less vote against more money for Nova Scotia.

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal whip indicated that the member for West Nova was delayed, I wonder how much further delayed the other 100 members are? How far away are they?

* * *

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 30)

YEAS

Members

Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Arthur
Batters
Benoit
Bezan
Blackburn
Blaney
Boucher
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrie
Casson
Chong
Clement
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Del Mastro
Devolin
Doyle
Dykstra
Emerson
Epp
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Jaffer
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKenzie
Manning
Mayes
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Paradis
Petit
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Verner
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Williams
Yelich

Total: -- 119

NAYS

Members

André
Angus
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Barbot
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bellavance
Bevington
Blaikie
Bonsant
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Carrier
Casey
Charlton
Chow
Christopherson
Crowder
Cuzner
Davies
Deschamps
Dewar
Duceppe
Eyking
Faille
Freeman
Gagnon
Gaudet
Godin
Gravel
Guay
Guimond
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lavallée
Layton
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
Malo
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Matthews
McDonough
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Nadeau
Nash
Ouellet
Paquette
Perron
Picard
Plamondon
Priddy
Regan
Roy
Russell
Savage
Savoie
Siksay
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
Stoffer
Thi Lac
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Vincent
Wasylycia-Leis

Total: -- 72

PAIRED

Members

Baird
Bernier
Bigras
Brunelle
Cardin
Crête
Demers
Hinton
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Thompson (Wild Rose)

Total: -- 10

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order, please. Obviously the Christmas spirit has gripped members in matters procedural.

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

* * *

Canada Elections Act

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (verification of residence), be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

When the recorded division was put, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay had concluded his speech. There now remains 10 minutes for questions and comments.

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for the incredible work that he did at the committee in trying to correct the serious flaws in the bill.

Bill C-18 has a bad history. It started with Bill C-31 when the government moved on legislation that was supposedly based on incidents of voter fraud. I was at some of those committee meetings where we asked questions on whether there was voter fraud going on across the country. Elections Canada told us that there were only isolated incidents and yet that original bill was brought in to a crushing effect. Hundreds of thousands of people, including in my own community of East Vancouver, are now disenfranchised as a result of the original bill and would still be disenfranchised as a result of Bill C-18 that is before us today.

I want to thank the hon. member for the valiant efforts that he made in committee to ensure that some witnesses were allowed to point out the serious flaws in this process and in this bill. However, it seems that this has fallen on deaf ears. Not only has the government been in denial about the impact of this bill, but so has the official opposition and the BQ.

It is quite stunning to see that other parties in this House have refused to acknowledge the disastrous impact of this bill and the impact it will have on people in urban areas, as well as rural areas, but because the issue in urban areas was never addressed we are now disenfranchising people.

I would like to ask the hon. member to comment from the point of view of what he heard from the witnesses and what he will see as the impact of this bill on people in urban areas.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go to the source itself. We had four witnesses give direct testimony to this and they were given two minutes to speak. This is actually what their instructions were. The chair said:

...I'm going to give each witness no more than two minutes to introduce yourselves, and, if you choose, to provide us with an opening statement. That will allow members more time to ask questions that are very specific....

Of course, the punchline was that the Bloc, the Liberals and the Conservatives were all lined up not to ask any questions. Therefore, our chair told our witnesses to introduce themselves and then to sit and wait for questions.

Mr. Ian Boyko, government relations coordinator with the Canadian Federation of Students, said:

I'm going to abandon my remarks today, because two minutes isn't enough to even touch on some of the things we have concerns with.

What I will flag for the committee is that my members are having great difficulty understanding the rush that was involved with Bill C-31 in the spring and now the rush that's involved with Bill C-18 today when there are so many flaws in the Elections Act that prevent students and those with transient addresses from registering to vote.

He went on to say that the bill “will ensure that tens of thousands of students won't be able to meet the Elections Act requirements in the upcoming federal election”.

He continued by saying:

Like I said, we have serious concerns about the way students are being alienated from this process, and why the rush on rural voters and not the rush on other very important voting populations that were ignored in Bill C-31 and that are also ignored in Bill C-18.

Not one member of the other parties asked Mr. Boyko a question. They were not interested in that testimony.

I could go on and on from this dismal day in committee that shows members were not doing due diligence. Our fundamental job is to ensure that due diligence is always done.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague's intervention on this topic and his understanding of the issues here, and I share his concern. I have heard it time and again over the last number of elections about the preparation of voters lists and the departure from enumeration. We know that the last enumeration was in 1997.

I had an incident in my riding where one community was voting in the poll in the adjacent community and vice versa. There is always contention around this but I know positive steps have been made in advance polling.

The member brought forward some very significant issues. If he could fill me in on when Bill C-31 was passed, I believe the member for Timmins—James Bay was on that committee, would he or his party have had the opportunity to tender a dissenting report at that time?

(1335)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, in representing an area like Cape Breton, will know the problems. I do not know where Elections Canada gets its maps from sometimes but I know that in my riding people are sent to polling stations 40 or 50 kilometres up the road. The result of that is that they simply do not vote or, if they do try to vote in their own town, they are told they cannot even though they have been in that town their whole life, and they end up not voting. That is a very serious issue.

When Bill C-31 was brought forward, our party brought forward a number of amendments to try to make the bill workable because at the end of the day, as I keep repeating, our job is to make legislation that works and that is practical.

When we found that there was not that much interest in addressing the issues we were raising, the fact that numerous people would not meet this new requirement and we needed to fix the problem, we ended up voting against that bill because we felt that it would come back to haunt us. It has already come back to haunt us twice.

The other astounding testimony that was given just the other day on Bill C-18 by Jim Quail was that this was now facing a charter challenge. It was going to court. Again, no one seemed interested in asking him any questions about the fact that we might get legislation that gets its rear-end kicked all over the courts. However, I asked him questions and there was a clear legal precedent about any interference in the right to vote.

Once again, if we are going to make laws, we need to ensure they stand up to scrutiny and the test of time. Unfortunately, Bill C-18 could have done it, and we were certainly willing to work at it, but at the end of the day I think we will be back to square one. We will still have problems with the way the vote has come down.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from northern Ontario for his work on this file having been the member for the New Democratic Party who was on the committee for Bill C-31. I understand his frustration when we have a bill that is supposed to encourage franchise, or at least the integrity and that is what the government would say and the other parties support it, and ends up doing the opposite. It is very frustrating.

We put forward amendments to make sure that every Canadian who is eligible could vote. We put forward the idea of universal suffrage. We believe fundamentally that there should be a universal commitment by any government to have door to door enumerations. We called it universal enumeration for universal suffrage.

We asked for a statutory declaration for voters. We asked for a change in how voter cards are distributed. They should be put in envelopes addressed to the voters, so that there would be no problem with cards lying around.

All of those ideas that we put forward were rejected. It is our submission that we do that first before we meddle with things like putting birth dates on voter's lists and sharing them with political parties so that they can use them for their own purposes.

My question is this. What is it that we can do to fix the bill, so that we do not come back in another couple months having to fix yet another flawed piece of legislation?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Charlie Angus:

Mr. Speaker, the answer should be fairly straightforward. Number one, when we bring forward legislation and we look to new laws, we have to bring forward witnesses, listen to witnesses, question witnesses on the veracity of their viewpoints, and we have to show basic respect for the fact that these witnesses have come forward.

I would like to speak about Ms. Tina Bradford who is a labour lawyer who tried to speak to the committee and she got all of 11 sentences in her statement. She was told by the chair that the committee was running out of time and that was the end of it. This is about whether or not someone should be allowed to vote and she was cut off after 11 sentences. This was an embarrassment. It was like a kangaroo court.

I asked her in questioning because I was the only one asking questions of witnesses who had taken the time to prepare briefs and the time to study. These were people who had come from the legal profession to provide the numbskulls that were looking at this legislation with answers. I cannot say it is anything else but numbskulls. If people are not going to do their homework, if they are not going to ask questions, then how can they say that they know what they are talking about?

I asked her specifically about the issue of voter fraud and enfranchisement. I asked, “Is what we're suggesting in Bill C-18 workable?” She told me that from her experience with working on enfranchising voters, that it was a ridiculous provision. That was her word. She said, “I've only been able to use this vouching system on one occasion and it's a ridiculous provision. It provides nothing to people who vote”.

I asked her again about the issue of voter fraud from her experience as a lawyer working on the street. She said, “In all my time volunteering at polling stations I've never experienced any voter fraud. What I do experience is that people are turned away voting for the first time in their lives, people who really want to vote and they are often being turned away”. That is what she gave us as testimony.

If people disagreed with it, they should have asked her questions. They should have had it on the record. To allow her 11 sentences, as a statement, shows that we simply are failing in this role in Parliament. As I said, I think it is a very dismal trade when such events are allowed to take place.

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to this bill. I am actually delighted that we are getting it before the break because it is a bit disappointing in a way that, as the chair of rural caucus, it is an amendment that is specifically for rural Canadians and is coming so late in the game.

That being said, I am delighted that the entire House is cooperating to ensure that this important amendment gets through, so that rural Canadians are not disenfranchised through some administrative mistake. If not, then somehow we would all have been involved in making something that would have disenfranchised a majority of the voters in the next byelection in the prairies. A majority of voters north of 60 could easily not have been able to vote if we did not make this important amendment.

There are a number of other election provisions that I will speak to today, a few that should and could be made, but of course that is not the topic. The topic today is to primarily deal with these rural Canadians who otherwise could not have a vote.

Therefore, we have to make these administrative amendments. These provisions are to ensure that these Canadians will again be able to vote in a coming election, which could be soon, and certainly in the event of byelections.

I want to reassure rural Canadians that if for some reason this did not pass, they would still be able to vote because the Chief Electoral Officer has the authority to deal with such a crisis as this and to enfranchise people through whatever mechanisms are necessary. However, that is not really the way to run a navy, it is not the best way to solve this. We in Parliament who create these laws should, when we make an error, make these amendments even if it is an administrative error and fix the law so that all Canadians have the appropriate ability to vote.

That is why during the process of this bill I, too, as some others have mentioned, have urged the committee, Elections Canada and the department drafting the bill, to ensure that homeless people could vote. There are a number of homeless people across the country and we have to ensure that there are enough people who can vouch for them, and people working in the shelters who might know of their locations. There should not be a limit on the number who can sign for these people.

That is why the best solution is to get these people out of poverty. That is why I am very excited that a few weeks ago our leader made a great announcement for a first-ever comprehensive anti-poverty strategy in Canada that would take 30% of these people off the poverty list in the next five years. It would certainly reduce the problem.

We also have other efforts related to homelessness. We have one of the most successful social programs in history, I think, the SCPI program, which everyone I think in the House has eventually championed after seeing its results. It puts these homeless people in specific good shelters for a time until we solve the ultimate problem. Of course, we should be dealing with the root problems and hopefully getting them back into proper affordable housing, and regular housing, as they again get jobs et cetera.

However, until that time if they are in good shelters, we will have them with workers who can then enfranchise them and get them to vote. In particular in my area, I urge the government on this, we need a shelter for teenagers. We have one under that SCIPI program that we put in place for adults. There were none at all before that, particularly for men. We would want one for teenagers, so that we could segregate them. It would be much safer for them.

In the north homelessness is also a particular issue in that we do not want people lying in the streets at 60 below. They have to go somewhere and unfortunately, they are going into places where they should not be, where they have to offer sexual favours for shelter or they are crowded in, impugning on children where they should not necessarily be crowded in. All these things could be solved and hopefully some of it will be solved with this anti-poverty strategy that we have announced.

(1345)

Today we are talking about the disenfranchisement of rural voters. I cannot imagine anyone in the House being against a provision that would ensure all rural Canadians are not stuck with this mistake. It should be fixed, so they can vote under the normal process as they did before.

I am talking particularly about individuals with no street address. Those of us who live in rural areas know many people who do not have a street address. We also know that there are entire communities without street addresses. When I lived in the north I did not have a specific street address. It was R.R. #1, Site 2, Comp 3. Some people live near the highway.

Provinces, territories and municipalities are trying to legislate an end to this problem because street addresses are needed for the fire department and for 911, so people can be found in an emergency. Thousands of people still do not fall into that category. That correction has not been made, and unless we amend the provisions in this bill today, they will not be able to vote.

Santa Claus and I visited a small community in my area on the weekend. This community is spread out along the highway and in rural bush areas where there are no addresses. Many people just have general delivery. A truck goes to the community every couple of days and drops all the mail at the post office. This legislation would not solve this problem.

In my community there are many people who live out in the bush. I remember going down roads in the middle of virtually nowhere and coming upon cabins. These people do not have a particular street address. Some of them have to fly in like they do in Nunavut. All sorts of people only have access to their communities by air and not by road. This may be a surprise to a number of southern Canadians, but there are many areas where there is no road access. In these cases it would be very difficult to have a defined street address as we in southern Canada understand it.

There are other people who could also be affected, such as first nations. I have urged in previous speeches that we make sure these people are not disenfranchised either through this bill or through further amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Many first nations are in fly-in communities or they live on reserve. They may not have the same type of street numbering system that we are traditionally accustomed to. It is important that these people are not disenfranchised.

Fourteen first nations live in Yukon and a number of these are traditionally nomadic. They do not stay in one area for an entire year. They move around because of the various types of game harvesting or plant harvesting they need to do during various times of the year.

It is important that we take into account the nature of all Canadian lifestyles when we are developing an electoral system. This is not impossible to do.

A Mongolian delegation recently visited here. The Mongolian people, unlike Canadians, have many herds, many cattle, sheep, horses and goats, but they do not have fences or private property the way we do here in Canada. When they need to rest an area for the environment, they simply move their herds over to another steppe, or another mountain, or another valley.

(1350)

Obviously, they do not have specific street addresses while they are moving around. I questioned them when they were here a couple of weeks ago and they said they had no problem in coming up with solutions to enumerating all their people and making sure that they have a very high percentage of voting, I believe higher than we do. That is great for a country in that part of Asia where democracies are not prevalent, particularly with the sad situation today in Burma.

The provisions were put in with the best intent. There are people who have come to members of Parliament with numerous examples suggesting the occurrence of fraud when identification is not available. Not very many cases could be prosecuted or taken to the final stages. Various people have alluded to many problems that would not be in the existing system if we changed the provisions so that they were similar to the provisions in a number of other countries.

I do not think anyone in the House would be against improving the integrity of the voting system in Canada. Certainly the hallmark of our democracy is one person, one vote. That people would try to circumvent that really strikes at the heart of our democracy, but in that sense, as I urged earlier in my speech, we have to make sure that in doing this, we do not disenfranchise people. That principle must apply to everyone.

I have mentioned several groups, such as the homeless, first nations people, and people in the rural areas who do not have a street address, but there are other groups in my constituency that I have mentioned in previous speeches on this bill, for example, students.

North of 60, there are no universities, so all our students make a grand migration to universities or colleges in the south. We do have excellent colleges in the north, such as Yukon College, which has some university credit courses, but many of the students in the three territories go to the south. I can say that as the northern critic. The students would be away at election time and would not be residing at their permanent street address. If for some reason they were not properly enumerated, they could fall into the trap of being disenfranchised.

This reminds me that I wanted to speak about the enumeration lists, as I am speaking about things that need to be corrected. I am speaking now to Elections Canada. I do not imagine there is a member of Parliament here who would not suggest that there have been some disastrous situations with the present idea of the permanent enumeration list.

Personally I am quite supportive of a permanent enumeration list, if it is kept up to date. I am sure all members of Parliament have gone to houses in recent elections where 20 or 30 people lived in the house according to the enumeration list. After people moved from the house, they were still listed as living in the house. The list had not been updated.

In my riding, there is a relatively high degree of mobility. There are all sorts of people who change their address, such as students and young people who move in and out with other people. Somehow they just do not show up on the enumeration lists and are therefore lost, or there are too many eligible voters. I am sure that accounts for part of the low degree of voting in Canada. If there are 20 people listed at one address where only three people live, that is going to show up as 17 people who did not vote. It will make it look like Canadians do not vote. Of course, they are not people who really live at the address; they are phantom residents. They have moved somewhere else and are double listed.

(1355)

I encourage Elections Canada to modernize the enumeration lists to solve that problem. It is a good system to have a permanent list, but Elections Canada has to get a handle on who lives where so that when enumerators go door to door, the list is relatively accurate and the number of people who are enfranchised is more realistic, so we do not have to make amendments and we can spend our time debating ideas and policies.

There are other groups that we want to ensure are not disenfranchised. One of them is not specific to the north and that is the military. It has to do with the street address requirement for people who move around. The military has a unique way of voting. As I said in previous speeches, I want to make sure that members of the military are in no way disenfranchised by the amendments to improve the integrity of the voting system.

There are two other groups in my area. One is what we call snowbirds. A number of northerners, mostly retired people, go south for the winter, where there are lower heating costs and they can enjoy their retirement in a warmer climate. If they do not have an official street address and cannot vote, they would be unduly disenfranchised. I would urge the people in committee, in the department and in Elections Canada who are studying and improving the elections process to make sure they do not disenfranchise those people.

Another group is people who have to move quickly because of a medical emergency. I visited a hospital in the last election and there were people who had been brought to the hospital from out of town. Therefore, they were not in their poll and they could not vote. I want to make sure that in those cases, people can vote.

In conclusion, since we are breaking for the holidays, I would like to say meilleurs voeux, seasons greetings, auguri di buone feste, felices fiestas, peace, pax, paz, mir, mira poki, frieden.

Please support this bill so that rural Canadians are not disenfranchised. Let us get this bill through as quickly as possible.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

The hon. member for Yukon still has two minutes left in his allotted time, plus the period for questions and comments.

We will move on to statements by members.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Mary Olson

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this past week the town of Edson mourned the loss of long time community activist Mary Olson. She passed away at the young age of 53 during her second term as city councillor.

She was a devoted community organizer who was committed to giving back to the people of Edson. She was a founder of the Edson Women's Association and the Edson Youth Justice Committee and was instrumental in establishing the Edson and District Victim Services group.

If she had a passion, she brought it forward and she stood by it. She learned that determination after spending some time living on the streets with her single mother, Dorothy, as Dorothy struggled to finish university.

Through Mary's dedication to the community, her love for the people and her willingness to serve, she was an example to all of us.

Today, I honour Mary and her life of selfless giving to her family and her community.

* * *

Heritage Railway Stations

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Pacific Railway station in Fredericton has fallen into a state of total disrepair.

I am calling on the federal government to amend the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, which would close a major loophole.

The York Street site was designated in 1991 as a historic railway station under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. Unfortunately, the site has been neglected for years and its future is in question.

Under the act, a property owner cannot sell, demolish or renovate a site without the approval of the federal government, but it does not speak to inaction, neglect or abandonment.

Built in 1923, the CPR station in Fredericton was designated because of its historical and architectural qualities.

The federal government, through Parks Canada, must correct this flawed legislation and ensure that heritage sites are properly maintained and celebrated.

* * *

[Translation]

Book on Quebeckers of Haitian Origin

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to attend the official launch of a book edited by Dr. Samuel Pierre for the Association des ingénieurs et scientifiques haïtiano-canadiens (AIHC), entitled Ces Québécois venus d'Haïti, Contribution de la communauté haïtienne à l'édification du Québec moderne.

This book takes the reader through the past 40 years of Quebec's history, telling the stories of 52 Quebeckers of Haitian origin. It is a touching tribute to these men and women who have formed close ties to our society. It is also a source of inspiration for younger generations and offers them models of determination, perseverance and excellence that encourage a positive outlook on the future.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I are happy to highlight the contribution of the AIHC and of all those whose time and energy went into the production of this unique book, which tells how members of the Haitian community have integrated into and contributed to Quebec society.

* * *

[English]

The Environment

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, immoral, dishonest, misleading; surprisingly, those are not the words of committee members delving into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. They are the words of the international community as it condemns Canada's refusal to commit to deep emissions reductions to fight global warming.

This week marked the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto protocol. World leaders are gathered in Bali trying to negotiate a global agreement on the second post-Kyoto phase. Why? Because, as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has pointed out, climate change is the biggest challenge to humanity in the 21st century.

However, under the stewardship of successive Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada's greenhouse gases are now almost 33% above Canada's Kyoto target. We should be with the leaders of the world, not the laggards.

It is an abdication of leadership to suggest that the world can only sign a climate deal if the U.S. does. Canadians expect the Prime Minister to act in our interest, not in the interest of George Bush.

While climate change has been rapid, it is devastating that Canada's response is not.

* * *

Female Elected Officials

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order for Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Township Mayor Janice Visneskie on her recent acclamation to a second term as warden of Renfrew County.

Long before it became politically correct to demand gender equality among politicians, the smart voters of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke recognized the benefit of balanced representation to lead their local government.

As the first female elected to upper level government, I am joined by Warden Janice Visneskie, Mayor Ann Aikens of the Town of Deep River, Mayor Sandi Heins of the Town of Renfrew, Mayor Mary Campbell of McNab/Braeside Township, Mayor Raye-Ann Briscoe of Admaston/Bromley Township, Head, Clara and Maria Township Reeve Tammy Sonnenburg, and Town of Renfrew Reeve Audrey Green.

There is no higher calling than an elected office. I congratulate citizens of both genders who answer that call.

I look forward to working with Warden Visneskie and all members of councils in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke as we work together to improve the lives of our fellow citizens.

* * *

(1405)

Joseph Zatzman

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the remarkable life of Joseph Zatzman ended this week. He was 95.

Born in St. John, he chose the community of Dartmouth as his adopted home. He opened a grocery store on Portland Street, moved into real estate, and became one of Nova Scotia's most significant landlords, most admired business people and prominent public citizens.

He was elected to town council and in 1963 was elected mayor of Dartmouth. He is our only Jewish mayor and is widely regarded as one of the best mayors in Dartmouth's proud history.

His most significant achievement, and also the most significant in Dartmouth's development, was his leadership in the birth and growth of Burnside Industrial Park. It was his project, his success and his legacy.

His post-mayoralty life continued to be one of achievement and recognition.

Although he lost some zeal for life after the death of his beloved Leah, he continued to be one of our most respected and beloved citizens until his death this week.

Our whole community feels his loss. To his family, including my friend, his son Michael, we offer our condolences on the loss of a man whose beliefs were simple--faith, family, and community--but whose achievements were remarkable.

* * *

Lebanon

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Beirut an explosion killed Lebanese Brigadier General Francois al-Hajj and a number of other people. Canada strongly condemns this new terrorist attack, which comes at a time when Lebanon is putting forth considerable effort to find a political solution to the current crisis.

Canada sends its condolences to the families of the victims and to the people of Lebanon.

We also reiterate our firmest support for Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and his government.

This attack against the stability and democracy of Lebanon must not weaken the resolve of the Lebanese people to resist those who seek to destabilize their country.

Those who committed this act of violence and those who support them must be brought to justice.

* * *

[Translation]

Minister of Public Works and Government Services

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works finally announced on December 10, 2007, the federal government's contribution for the relocation of the Montreal planetarium to the Rio site.

During the press conference, the unelected minister put on a shameful display of partisanship unworthy of his position. Indeed, although the host of the event had planned to invite the federal representatives from east Montreal, the unelected minister apparently objected, despite the fact that these federal representatives joined forces to complete the project.

Furthermore, this unelected minister, showing absolute pettiness and a complete lack of ethics, took it upon himself to invite and introduce Conservative candidates from Montreal Island, emphasizing that they would likely be his future colleagues in the House of Commons.

Coming from someone who was not elected, this contempt for the democratic process is not only unacceptable, but I think it is safe to bet that Montrealers will not soon forget it.

* * *

[English]

Government Policies

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, what a refreshing change it is from a previous government that was full of talk and no action to a government that gets things done. We are a government that speaks and takes action, and that promises, then delivers.

Let us have a look at what the government has accomplished and what it has delivered. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%.

We have reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn before paying income tax to $9,600.

We have delivered $100 per month to parents for each and every child under six years of age.

We have reduced the national debt by $37 billion, with interest savings used to further reduce taxes.

When it comes to protecting our streets, the government has delivered by introducing sweeping reforms on the justice front.

After having listed a number of initiatives that will put more dollars than ever before in the pockets of all Canadians, I would like to wish all members of the House, and indeed all Canadians, a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year.

* * *

Dunlap Observatory

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the David Dunlap Observatory opened in 1935 on land donated in trust to the University of Toronto by the widow of astronomy supporter David Dunlap. Under the terms of the trust, the Dunlap heirs would regain ownership of the university facility if it closed.

The University of Toronto recently announced that it will declare the observatory surplus and put it up for sale.

I believe that this is such an important historic site because it is the largest observatory east of the Rocky Mountains and it is where the first black hole was discovered in 1972 by astronomer Thomas Bolton.

It is unfortunate that at this time it will be the highest bidder who will control that particular property.

I have spoken with and urged the Government of Canada to consider creating a large national urban park that would be the first of its kind in the greater Toronto area. I believe that all orders of government should participate in support of this. I believe the residents of Richmond Hill want to maintain this great jewel, not only for the people of Richmond Hill, but for Canada.

* * *

(1410)

[Translation]

Bloc Québécois

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is like Santa Claus. The story is that he is the one who makes and delivers the gifts, but we know that is not what really happens.

People can write letters to Santa Claus, but at the end of the day, it is our government that has the means to take action, to keep its word and to deliver the goods.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced 242 private members' bills, but has managed to get just two private members' bills passed and that was just to change the names of two ridings. If the Bloc was truly Santa Claus, then Quebec families would be disappointed with their gifts this year.

For every issue, the Bloc has a solution. The only problem—and it is a huge problem—is that they are stuck in the opposition benches and cannot implement their solutions.

Those who do not have the responsibility that comes with being in power can say or ask for anything they want. Our government is proud to act in the interest of Quebec and Canadians where the Bloc simply cannot.

* * *

[English]

Government Policies

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker: the softwood lumber sellout, which increased raw log exports, the rapid expansion of the tar sands so we can pipe bitumen to the U.S., the deregulation of air traffic safety, and the introduction of security certificates. I could on about all the shameful ways in which the Conservative government is harmonizing Canada's trade, safety and environmental policies with George Bush's United States.

Canadians know that the introduction of these measures will have long-lasting negative impacts on our jobs, our communities and our sovereignty. Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Canada will have less and less ability to adopt independent and sustainable economic, social, cultural and environmental policies.

In the long run, this could have a lethal effect on Canadian public programs such as universal health care and public education.

As members of Parliament, we are each privileged to represent a portion of this country, but we also have a duty to protect it. I see it as my duty to do all I can to stop the SPP from going any further.

* * *

[Translation]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, 2008 marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called on all countries to mark this anniversary by renewing their commitment to human rights throughout the world.

[English]

Let this task start first and foremost with the United Nations itself, which needs to deal with pressing issues like Darfur and genocide.

The often repeated one-sided resolutions against Israel to the exclusion of all others, such as Iran, undermine the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, as well as diminish the UN's credibility, and this ultimately hurts the noble goal of universal human rights.

We need to all join in echoing the words of the UN Secretary-General when he says that countries should “promote the Declaration's ideals and principles of justice and equality for everyone”.

If universal human rights are to be enjoyed by all, then we must all do our part.

* * *

[Translation]

Bill C-482

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, last November I tabled Bill C-482 to amend the Official Languages Act. The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois would require the federal government to recognize Quebec's Charter of the French Language.

Yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, this bill was deemed votable by everyone except the Conservatives. Those who boast constantly about having recognized the Quebec nation refuse to even vote on a fundamental aspect of this very nation: the French language.

The Conservatives attempted to impede debate on the primacy of the French language by citing false constitutional arguments. In one fell swoop they clearly demonstrated that the motion adopted by this House on the Quebec nation is nothing but empty words and that the recognition is meaningless.

Recognition of the Quebec nation means respecting the primacy of Bill 101 in Quebec.

* * *

[English]

Poverty

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, across my constituency of Churchill, and indeed the entire country, Canadians are united in their demands for immediate action to address poverty in this country.

The 30-50 plan recently unveiled by the Liberal leader will reduce the number of Canadians living below the poverty line by at least 30% and, more importantly, will cut the number of children living in poverty by half within five years.

It will improve the child tax benefit, help lift vulnerable seniors out of poverty by increasing the guaranteed income supplement, and create a “making work pay benefit” to lower the welfare wall and encourage personal success and independence.

When implemented, this approach will then, and only then, set Canada back on track toward a fair and just society.

* * *

(1415)

United Nations Conference on Climate Change

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to flip-flopping on climate change, the Liberal Party cannot escape the truth. In recognition of the Liberals' complete failure over 13 years to fight climate change, we are happy to continue awarding a special Liberal with the flip-flop of the day during the course of the current United Nations Conference on Climate Change taking place in Indonesia.

Today's award goes to Bob Rae, who said on November 2, 1979, “In my opinion, if we look at the record, the most hypocrites in this House are in the Liberal Party of Canada”.

Bob Rae also said on November 30, 1979, “It is amazing how the Liberal party at moments of convenience, and when they are looking for a policy and looking for a leader, suddenly latch on to an issue about which they have no coherent point of view at all”.

Bob Rae concluded by saying on July 10, 1980, “Nothing embarrasses the Liberals because they do not know the meaning of shame. They are without shame; they are shameless”.

This government could not agree more.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Milliken:

Order, please.

Pursuant to order made this morning, the House will adjourn this afternoon for the Christmas holidays.

[English]

I wish to advise hon. members that, as is the custom, I will be hosting a reception following private members' hour, whenever that might occur, in Room 216, to which all hon. members are invited.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[Translation]

Chalk River Nuclear Facilities

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday in this House, the Minister of Health said that a two or three day delay in the production of isotopes would affect more than 200,000 patients around the world.

Can the Minister of Health explain why his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, waited two days before informing him of the impending crisis? He waited two days and put 200,000 patients at risk.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, of course when the government was informed of this situation, we took vigorous action to ensure the health and safety of Canadians.

[English]

When we heard about the situation at AECL being an unscheduled, prolonged shutdown, this government acted. We contacted over 800 hospitals and institutions. We ensured that triaging was taking place in the health care system.

This, we believe, has helped divert catastrophe until such time as the reactor will fire up and will deliver much needed isotopes for Canadians and for the rest of the world.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, one minister is not talking to the other. The same minister admitted that he only learned of the crisis two days after the Minister of Natural Resources. We are talking two days and 210,000 patients put in danger.

The left hand of the government does not know what the right hand is doing. Why did it take 48 hours for one minister to talk to the other in the middle of a national crisis?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I think the testimony on Bill C-38 indicates that this government and the ministers acted as quickly as possible upon learning the information.

The real question is why the deputy leader of the opposition does not listen to himself. He says this was a crisis, but as late as this Tuesday afternoon, he was still insisting the government should defer to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, to Ms. Keen, and not act at all. That is the position he is going to have to explain.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows that this is entirely false. We worked in cooperation with the government to get this done.

Let me ask this. On Tuesday the Department of Justice told the nuclear regulator that it was not going to provide legal counsel on the Chalk River crisis. Why did the Minister of Justice withdraw legal services to the commission? Why did the government subvert the legal authority of the regulator? What message is the government trying to send to other federal regulators: “Watch out or we'll come after you too?”

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has it wrong again. The Department of Justice continues to offer legal services to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

What it did suggest, with respect to the Chalk River reactor, was it might be a good idea that it engage independent legal advice, so there would be no potential or conflict of interest. It seems to be a pretty reasonable proposition.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have independent advice that this is not true.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. It is clear that the government has deliberately been undermining the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Incredibly, the justice department cutoff legal advice to the regulator on Monday, just before that act was introduced.

The minister ordered his officials to stop giving legal counsel or doing any work on the Chalk River research reactor. This is a clear violation of the minister's obligations. Is it the minister's intent to kill Canada's nuclear regulator?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):