38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 045
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
|
 |
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Chief Electoral Officer |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
House of Commons |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.) |
|
|
Order in Council Appointments |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
1906 Census Records |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Organization of American States |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Interparliamentary Delegations |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Textile Industry |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 |
|
|
Hon. R. John Efford |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson |
|
|
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
|
|
|
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004 |
|
|
Hon. Andy Scott |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004 |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
|
|
|
Food and Drugs Act |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
London Knights |
|
|
Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Millennium Fund |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Greater Toronto Airport Authority |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Entrepreneur of the Year |
|
|
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC) |
|
|
Canadian Forces Reserves |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
John Humphrey Freedom Award |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ) |
|
|
Aysegul Candir |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.) |
|
|
Kamloops Christmas Light Tour |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Ukraine |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
|
Brabant Newspapers |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Bethlehem Walk in Parksville |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Textile and Clothing Industry |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Kids Come First Child Care Centre |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Child Care |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Natural Resources |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Textile and Clothing Industry |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Maher Arar Inquiry |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Textile and Clothing Industry |
|
|
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Textile and Clothing Industry |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Commercial Bankruptcies |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Aerospace Industry |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Textile and Clothing Industry |
|
|
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Textile and Clothing Industry |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
Firearms Program |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Tourism Industry |
|
|
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
China |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Textile and Clothing Industry |
|
|
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Governor General |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga—Erindale, Ind.) |
|
|
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Business of the House |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2 |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2 |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Procedure and House Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2 |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Pension Ombudsman Act |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Income Tax Act |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Amendment agreed to)
|
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Income Tax Act |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ) |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Income Tax Act |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Textile Industry |
|
|
(House in committee of the whole for consideration of a motion on the textile industry under Government Orders, Mr. Strahl in the chair.)
|
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada |
|
|
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jacques Saada |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Hon. Denis Paradis |
|
|
The Chair |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Vincent |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos |
|
|
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Alain Boire |
|
|
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Alain Boire |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Chair |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
(1000)
[English]
Chief Electoral Officer
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the final printed version of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 38th general election held on June 28, 2004.
[Translation]
This report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
* * *
(1005)
[English]
House of Commons
The Speaker: I also have the honour to lay upon the table the report on the strategic outlook for the 38th Parliament of the House of Commons administration.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Minister of State (Northern Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2001-02 annual report of the Yukon Land Claims and Self-government Agreements; the 2002-03 annual report of the Nisga'a Final Agreement; and the 2003 annual report on the state of Inuit culture in society in the Nunavut settlement area.
* * *
Order in Council Appointments
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments recently made by the government.
* * *
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
* * *
Committees of the House
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, regarding changes to the standing orders respecting the mandate of the committee.
* * *
[Translation]
Petitions
National Defence
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I am tabling this petition signed by 1,202 Quebeckers from throughout Quebec.
The petition's message to Canada is that Canada's full or partial involvement in the United States missile defence plan would go against our interests and values.
This petition is more evidence that the people of Quebec are against the missile defence shield. I want to remind hon. members that according to a CRIC poll conducted on November 4, 65% of Quebeckers and 52% of Canadians are against this bill.
Here is hoping that the government will hear the message in this petition and realize that it must say no to the missile defence project.
* * *
Justice
Ms. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,300 people. This petition is calling for an amendment to the sentence of second degree murder for crimes involving spousal abuse.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Petitions
1906 Census Records
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that other hon. members also want to table petitions.
The petition I want to table calls on Parliament to take the necessary measures to amend protection of information provisions in the Statistics Act in order to allow public access to the 1906 census records.
* * *
[English]
Aboriginal Affairs
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a large number of petitions. I think we now have received over 12,000 petitions lobbying against the taxation of aboriginal post-secondary funding.
I think it is well known to the House that the Canada Revenue Agency has announced that beginning in 2005 aboriginal post-secondary students' support funding would be treated as income, including tuition, book allowance, living allowance, scholarships, bursaries and travel dollars.
We have a disgrace in this country in terms of the limited access there has been to post-secondary education. We are talking about the poorest families in this country who desperately need the education that should be available to them. They do not need this new barrier to stand in the way.
* * *
(1010)
Organization of American States
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition that is very straightforward. It calls upon the House of Commons to oppose the candidacy of Mr. Francisco Flores Perez for secretary general of the Organization of American States.
Canada is a member nation of the Organization of American States. Many concerns have been expressed about the inappropriateness and unacceptability of Mr. Perez being considered for secretary general. This is heartfelt by many Canadians who have taken the opportunity to sign a petition asking us to support their opposition to this appointment.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With your permission I would seek unanimous consent to revert to presenting interparliamentary reports. I was late getting into the House and I was hoping I could do that today.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from interparliamentary delegations?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31, I have the honour, on behalf of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports.
The first is a report on the Canadian delegation to the agricultural tour for U.S. congressional staffers held in Calgary, Alberta, from September 21 to 23, 2004.
The second is a report of the Canadian delegation to the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce Atlantica Prosperity meeting held in Bangor, Maine, from September 30 to October 1, 2004.
* * *
[Translation]
Request for Emergency Debate
Textile Industry
[S. O. 52]
The Speaker: The chair has received a notice of motion pursuant to Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 52, I wish to request that an emergency debate be held this evening regarding the absolutely disastrous situation facing the textile industry.
In support of my request, I would remind the Chair that, yesterday, 800 workers from the municipality of Huntingdon, in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, that is 75% of the work force in this municipality, learned that they were losing their jobs on a permanent basis, either immediately or in the spring.
Thousands of jobs are currently at stake in Quebec, and the impact is very great. I will simply remind the House that there are 600 such jobs in Trois-Rivières, 600 more in Drummondville and another 800 yesterday in Huntingdon. Quebec is experiencing an economic crisis, as is the rest of Canada. Altogether, the number of jobs located in Canada is about 75,000.
So, I ask for agreement of the House to hold this emergency debate. Before we permanently and prematurely adjourn for the holidays, I believe it is important for members of this House to take a few hours to debate, with the government, the thousands of jobs that have been lost, as well as all those that will be lost shortly.
This is an extremely urgent matter. It is the result of a tragic decision that is affecting, among many others, the municipality of Huntingdon, where 75% of the work force is being permanently laid off overnight.
I think that, in keeping with the holiday spirit, parliamentarians will surely agree to spend a few hours longer in the House to hold this debate on the textile industry. That seems logical to me. We cannot deny this opportunity to those who have just learned the worst news anyone can get 15 days before Christmas, in other words, that they have lost their job and come to the end of their career. We want to question the government about this. No measures have been implemented yet to help these industries suffering from the loss of hundreds of jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that you will allow this emergency debate to be held, given the extreme urgency of the situation and also the fact that the House will not be able to consider this matter again before the end of January, when the House resumes. I am confident that the Chair will agree that our work, which normally would have continued until Friday, can at least continue until later this evening. In many cases, it is a matter of survival for the people of Huntingdon and others in the industry. We must question the government before the holidays.
(1015)
The Speaker: I must point out to the House that a debate on this issue, as well as a motion in concurrence were already included in the report tabled in this House by the Standing Committee on Finance on November 30. The importance of the issue raised by the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean is obvious. I think I will have to take this under advisement. I will get back to the House later today with a ruling on the request just received.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
Hon. R. John Efford (for the Minister of the Environment) moved that Bill C-15, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the House today and add my comments to those already voiced about Bill C-15, this important initiative that would help prevent the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds every year across our coasts.
As has been indicated by my colleagues, I too am seeking to prevent the deaths of murres, puffins, great black-backed gulls and many other species of seabirds every winter as a result of the intentional or negligent illegal release of oil from some ships into marine waters.
In amending the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as proposed in Bill C-15, which is before us for third reading, we would be making important improvements to the enforcement regime in marine waters and ultimately preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds.
In particular, Bill C-15 would allow us to increase the ability to enforce provisions in these two seminal pieces of environmental legislation in Canada's exclusive economic zone. It would enhance the capacity of these two laws to protect our species and our environment and, at the end of the day, to protect us all.
Achieving the sustainability of our environment is why we have worked so hard on environmental legislation in this country. This is why we have led the way on international efforts and are known for that leadership. This is why we need to act now to deal with the ongoing pollution of our waters that threatens many species of seabirds. We would be able to put significant fines in place that would stop the illegal discharge of oily bilge waters from ships, which is threatening natural resources in our coastal waters.
The dumping of oil into water is avoidable. Many ships travel through Canadian waters far from the sight of land. It has not been easy to determine which ships are responsible for the many discharges of oil into marine waters. For this reason, some ship operators who pollute may think they will never get caught.
Furthermore, without laws providing for fines that are proportionate to the environmental cost, some members of the shipping industry may believe it costs less to risk the fine than it does to discharge their oily bilge waters before they arrive in port. We need to stop such practices.
Bill C-15 would increase the maximum fines for such pollution offences so that they are more in keeping with those of the United States.
The result should be that ships that pass through Canadian waters to dump oily bilge waters before proceeding to U.S. waters, where enforcement has been much stricter and fines much higher, would be deterred from dumping illegally into our marine environment.
Bill C-15 would put in place other provisions to ensure valid ships' records and to require equipment to avoid environmental pollution.
We can make sure that some of the worst perpetrators discover that they cannot get away with dumping oily bilge waters off Canadian coasts any longer without suffering consequences for those actions.
Not only does the Government of Canada intend to improve surveillance through satellite technology, the fines available upon passage of Bill C-15 will be a strong deterrent to illegal action.
After careful deliberations over Bill C-15, the Standing Committee on the Environment strongly supported the proposed bill with one amendment. I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of the Standing Committee on the Environment for all the work that they put into this legislation.
We heard my hon. colleague speak of the minimum fines of $300,000 on summary conviction and $500,000 on an indictable offence that would be imposed if ships over 5,000 tonnes violate the amended Migratory Birds Convention Act and pollute illegally.
Large ships over 5,000 tonnes should be expected to have modern and effective oil management systems. Shipping, as everyone in the House is aware, is big business, and the non-compliant companies that operate large ships must respect the polluter pays principle and provide the means to reduce or eliminate polluting activities involving their vessels. Those who do not abide by the rules will be penalized, should be penalized and ought to be penalized.
Bill C-15 deserves support in the House. I also urge support for the amendment by the Minister of Environment that the minimum fines for polluting ships over 5,000 tonnes be deposited directly to the environmental damages fund. This amendment will ensure that the proceeds of fines will be directed to the restoration of the damaged environment.
Fines in the case of ships exceeding 5,000 tonnes will go toward cleaning up the problem that was created in the first place. I think we all want fines to be used to reduce environmental damage. I think we want those who pollute our water and kill our birds to have to pay for the crime in ways that will have a direct benefit to our environment.
The option is consistent with the Government of Canada's philosophy of ensuring environmental sustainability, not only through its own funding but through the fines paid by those who threaten that sustainability through pollution activities.
(1020)
As we can see, the committee's amendment and good work are reinforced with this further refinement, but we can put the fines imposed on floating vessels of more than 5,000 tonnes to work where they are needed. It is good policy work, good legislative work and also good practice.
Members will notice that I am referring to amendments to existing laws. Many of us here worked on these laws and were proud to enter our names in their official support.
This means that we are not creating burdens for the shipping industry and we are not changing course. Quite the opposite. With Bill C-15, we are showing that we believe in what we have on the statute books and in Canadian commitments within international agreements.
The bills shows, nevertheless, that we are ready to improve federal wildlife protection statutes and are willing to act accordingly in the best interests of migratory seabirds and cleaner marine waters. This approach adheres to the goal of protecting and maintaining biodiversity, which in fact supports human existence.
What more can I say? The value of Bill C-15 speaks for itself. We would be putting in place measures that will help achieve a robust environment as essential to a competitive economy and thus to securing Canada's place in the world. In acting today, we are endorsing that vision and giving it strength.
Bill C-15 provides the means to enforce the high standards we have set, standards of which we are very proud, standards that will make us Canadians. We find these standards in our laws. We have committed to them in international agreements. We have committed to ourselves, to our children and to their children that we will conserve biodiversity and protect our natural heritage.
For the reasons I have just recited and for the other reasons that were referred to in the previous speeches given in support of this legislation, I urge all members to support this bill.
(1025)
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member talk about what this bill is going to do. As we have said before, we certainly support the bill.
I know that increasing fines will be a detriment to some degree. I am not sure exactly what the maximum fine is at present, or I do not know exactly what the largest fine imposed to date has been. I know they have been inconsequential. But I believe that if the member were to ask the Prime Minister he could probably tell him, because I believe it was one of his ships that got the heaviest fine issued so far.
I will ask the member one simple question. Does he think that simply by increasing fines we are going to stop the pollution of our waterways?
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased my learned friend is supporting the legislation. I listened to his speech yesterday and it certainly is an important issue, not only for his province but also for my province.
He asked the question about whether the fines are large enough. My answer is that they probably are not. He asked whether they will eliminate oil pollution in Pacific and Atlantic waters. The answer, unfortunately, is probably no. The other question on whether they will be a help, my answer is, yes.
When we have fines in the magnitude of $300,000 and $500,000, and when our rules and regulations are in sync with what we see on the Atlantic coast in the United States, that is so important so there is no benefit to doing anything wrong in Canadian waters. This is an important part of the legislation but the fines, the mandatory surveillance and the satellite imaging, when everything is looked at in perspective, the legislation, although it certainly would not eliminate oil pollution on our coastal waters, it would be a big step forward, which is why I, like my learned friend, will be supporting the legislation.
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the members opposite and particularly my colleague from Newfoundland who asked the last question. Incidentally, the answer to the member's question is that the fines are around $20,000 to $25,000 now. The new minimum in the bill proposed by the Conservatives would be $500,000. I will get into that, along with some history of the bill and the reason that it is before the House.
This was first brought to the public's attention in a major way by the minister of the environment from the province of Newfoundland and a number of citizens from Newfoundland several years ago.
The Conservative Party first asked questions in the House on the subject in about 1996. It was followed up by a private members' bill that came to be known as the Mills private bill, after the Conservative member for Red Deer. He introduced his bill after he heard the concerns of many Canadians when they saw the plight of up to 300,000 birds a year being lost to oil spills and the desecration of our coastlines.
The member for Red Deer pursued his bill but the government took no action until the day before the last general election was called when it in fact put forward Bill C-34. Bill C-34 received a lot of discussion but there was no chance of enactment of the legislation because an election was called and the bill died.
The bill was raised again as Bill C-15 in this Parliament and actively pursed by the aforementioned member for Red Deer and the environment committee. This is a Conservative motion and a conservative bill that was adopted by the government and we are very pleased.
There are a number of reasons that we need this bill. It is not only about the tourism, the ecotourism, the fishing industry on both our coasts and the residents who live on those coasts. It is about why the oil spills and the dumping of oily bilge water happens in the first place.
Frankly, I think many of the larger shipping companies, some of which were alluded to by my colleague from Newfoundland just a moment ago, would rather dump oily bilge water into Canadian waters so they can sail into U.S. ports clean. Why? It is simply because the United States has much higher fines and the cost of legally removing the bilge water once in port is very expensive. If the fines in Canada were $20,000 to $25,000 they would actually save money by dumping the oily water, that is if they were caught in the first place because the Canadian surveillance and enforcement was so weak.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Oceans a moment ago that in fact the Canadian surveillance and enforcement has been so weak.
I want us to be clear on the problem. If these ships were to enter into U.S. ports and they were found to be spilling oily bilge water, they would face enormous fines. The likelihood of them being caught is very high because the American surveillance is much higher than the surveillance in Canadian waters.
We had the recent example of the Terra Nova spill off Newfoundland where ships actually sailed into the oil slick and dumped their oily bilge water to be undetected as they sailed through Canadian waters. If they are not going to get caught this practice will continue.
We are very pleased to support the bill and particularly the Conservative amendment that would raise the minimum fines to $500,000 for ships over 5,000 tonnes. This might seem like a lot of money but it has to be a lot of money in order to be a deterrent so these major vessels do not dump in Canadian waters. We have become a dumping ground for oily bilge from vessels that want go into U.S. ports clean.
The Conservative amendment was passed by the committee with a seven to three vote, which emphasizes the commitment of the environmental committee to the cleaning up of our waters and the prevention of these oily bilge dumpings and spills in our waters.
I am pleased that we also received an amendment when the party opposite became involved in this bill and supported it. The fines that will be imposed for dumping in our waters will go directly to cleanup and to a damages fund to mitigate the damages caused by this oily bilge that is spilled into Canadian waters. Hopefully this will prevent the deaths of so many birds.
I wish Canadians could see the magnificent birds that are lost. It is quite tragic. This is another reason that we are so strongly supportive of the bill.
(1030)
I would suggest that another major factor in the bill is the enforcement and the fact that we need to increase surveillance and enforce the new laws in the legislation. We have the technology. We have RADARSAT that can follow ships. We have the technology to detect from which vessel the oily bilge was dumped, as was the case in the Terra Nova spill when we found there was bilge and oil in that slick in addition to that which came from the initial ship as a result of people dumping their oil in the middle of an already existing oil slick.
I am pleased the bill would increase fines, increase enforcement and increase the surveillance of the ships so we can prevent Canada from becoming, or continuing to be, a dumping ground for bilge oil.
I am pleased that the Conservative Party raised the motion. It is a tribute to the member for Red Deer who persevered in this matter on behalf of our colleagues on the coast, particularly in Newfoundland, and we are pleased to support the bill.
(1035)
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our party is delighted to have been involved to some degree in the motion because it does strengthen the bill. However the bill itself only goes so far. It would increase fines, which, without any no doubt, would be a deterrent and would perhaps make people think twice before dumping bilge oil, in particular.
Over the years most ship owners have known there was little chance of them getting caught so it did not matter to them. In this day and age, when we have good, on shore dumping facilities and we have the technology to greatly reduce pollutants in the waters that boats discharge, if they are installed properly on the boats, there should be little excuse for the major dumping of oil into our waters.
I would just like the members comments on the fact that on one hand we are increasing fines, but on the other hand the government is cutting back on overflights, which has happened. It is also reducing the number of vessels, as has been done in the east coast, which ply our waters, such as fishery patrol boats and the Coast Guard, knowing that our radar system is so poorly maintained, particularly on the west coast, that we cannot do a proper job.
On one hand, we are doing cosmetics and on the other hand, where it really counts, we are seeing major cutbacks. How can we ever solve a problem unless we stop talking about it and instead start doing something about it?
The other thing we see is the infighting within the present government. The Department of Justice, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are fighting over jurisdiction. We saw one major case of the Tecam Sea which should have been a hard and fast case against illegal dumping at sea. Every bit of evidence we would think we would need was there but because of infighting among departments, the case was dropped before it went to court and another boat sails away free and our waters are polluted.
Mr. Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl has hit the nail on the head. He is a man who understands his constituency and knows the problems that exist off the east coast of Canada. He is bang on. The problems do continue with regard to turf wars between government departments. There does not seem to be any coordination at all.
I would suggest that these fines should be directed into a damage fund to mitigate damages caused by these oil spills. It seems to me, and I think the hon. member would agree, that we could also increase enforcement and surveillance off our coast. There is no point in having this legislation if we are not going to be able to detect these ships that are causing the problem.
It is bad enforcement. It is about turf wars between government departments. This has to stop. I appreciate the member's question because this is exactly where the problem lies now. We have resolved the fines issue; it is now about enforcement. It is about the government getting its act together. We must get these departments working together to enforce and hopefully prosecute these polluters.
(1040)
[Translation]
Mr. Christian Simard (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to speak toBill C-15, which the Bloc Québécois supports, since we moved an amendment to this bill. This makes the bill all the more interesting to us.
A number of points need to be clarified. I was listening to my hon. colleague from Charlottetown congratulating himself on the amendment and the fact that the best amendments have several fathers. It certainly sounds like chicken droppings have all of a sudden become chicken soup. Just a moment ago, the Liberals were busy patting themselves on the back about the amendment, saying how interesting it was, so much so in fact that an amendment was included to have the fines received deposited in an environmental damages fund. But it should be pointed out that, at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, all but one Liberal member, who abstained, voted against this very amendment.
I have seen things change quickly in the past and, once again, I have seen that chicken droppings have turned into chicken soup, and very good soup at that. I guess it would be more pleasant for marine wildlife to be swimming in this chicken soup than in the waters available to them and the migratory birds.
This legislation is fundamental and important, it has unfortunately been too long in coming. Prior to this legislation, as soon as a vessel got outside the 12 mile limit, it was beyond reach. There was also some administrative carelessness, as out of an estimated 2,000 instances of discharge in 2000, five went to court. In 2001, the total was four and in 2002, only three out of 2000.
So this new legislation will have more teeth, and will extend the zone from the 12-mile limit to the 200 mile economic limit. This is a very good thing, but there is still the major issue of application.
The amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois is a first as far as Canadian environmental law is concerned. I think it would be worthwhile citing it, as it is so fundamental. The Liberals fought in committee, but suddenly find it is wonderful. This is the amendment I tabled in committee:
|
That Bill C-15, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 13 the following: “In the case of an offence under section 5.1 that is committed by a vessel of 5,000 tonnes deadweight or over,the fine imposed under paragraph (1.1)(a) shall not be less than $500,000.” |
In plain language, this means the matter will go to court. If there is a guilty verdict, the judge cannot impose a fine of less than $500,000.
that is, the fine imposed under paragraph (b)
|
The fine imposed under paragraph (1.1) shall not be less than $100,000. |
In fact, the bill deals with a procedure of summary conviction. So the fine is a minimum of $100,000 for the fast track procedure and $500,000 after a full trial. That is what this amendment is all about. It was adopted thanks to the support of the Conservatives, who had brought in a similar but less complete amendment, and thanks to the support of the NDP, but no thanks to the Liberal members of the committee, who opposed it. I think that things need to be brought out into the open. A spade must be called a spade. A government trying to pirate something is a government trying to pirate something.
So we have a bill here that has been improved. As I was saying, it is a first in Canadian environmental law. It is rather particular. You need to know that, in Canada, not only was there no minimum fine in the legislation until now, but polluters could and still can deduct their fines from their taxes. People do not realize that. We are in the realm of the polluter payee. We have seen it in the oil industry in Western Canada in many regards. There is a bill to correct this state of affairs. I do not hope that there will be any discharges, but if there are, the perpetrators must be punished, and a rehabilitation fund must be established. That is important.
That said, I grew up along the St. Lawrence. My riding of Beauport—Limoilou is along the St. Lawrence in a place where the river is not very wide. In my constituency, there is the baie de Beauport. They want to invest a lot of money there to make it a four season destination. That is very important. Some major municipal investments have been made to treat waste water so that, at certain times of the year, it is even possible to swim right in the middle of Quebec City. In this baie de Beauport, you can do water sports and various other things.
(1045)
Just one discharge could compromise for years the use of a beach in the heart of a city in areas where working people live.
Preserving the St. Lawrence and its shoreline, prosecuting and sentencing people who sail around in what we call “rustbuckets” where I come from, that is to say, ships that are often not seaworthy and could leak discharge at any time, that is something that is close to my heart. It is important.
In another professional life, I worked on establishing Stratégies Saint-Laurent, which is a group of organizations, firms and individuals interested in the St. Lawrence, all along the St. Lawrence, the Saguenay and the baie des Chaleurs. They are consultation committees. They are called ZIPs, priority intervention zones, and each has its own ZIP committee. They were inspired by the famous hot spots in the Great Lakes. These committees are interested in having action plans to clean up the St. Lawrence, make it accessible, and conserve sensitive wetlands threatened by the artificialization of the banks and by discharges.
For me, the St. Lawrence River is not an abstraction. The St. Lawrence is the waterway that was used by my ancestors to populate Quebec. It is extremely important. This legislation can protect the St. Lawrence. I proposed an amendment—and I am saying this without false modesty—which, in my opinion, is historic, because it will truly encourage people not to pollute anymore.
Currently, when people get caught, the average fine in Canada is $30,000. We are talking here about two convictions out of 2,000 violations. In terms of percentage, we have to use decimals and zeros before the decimals. In other words, Canada was a haven for polluting freighters, or for shipowners who hardly care. This bill will allow us to prosecute companies, whether it is the Canada Steamship Lines or others, that are bad corporate citizens and make them pay for the damage they cause and for what they do.
Therefore, this is extremely important. We were imposing fines of $30,000 Canadian, while the average fine in the United States for similar violations is $509,000 U.S. In Great Britain, in the United Kingdom, it is $411,000 U.S. Such are the average fines that are imposed. This is why making a little detour via Canada to get rid of bilge water and to empty out the tanks was a bargain. Big deal. It is nothing to take a trip at night, in the fog, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where surveillance is almost impossible and rarely done, and pollute. Anyone caught can simply write a cheque for a small amount, include it to his tax return, and bingo. These things must no longer happen and must no longer be tolerated.
The Bloc Québécois supports the bill. However, we are well aware of the government's ineffectiveness and we hope that an agreement can be reached between departments to truly implement this bill, so that it does not become yet another nice piece of legislation based on interesting principles, but never implemented.
I am happy to see that curiously, as things have now turned out, the Liberal members of the committee have acquired some wisdom, because I feared that the amendment I had proposed would not take effect, or, that its effect would be delayed through legislative tricks, to protect unknown parties.
I can see that this is not a likely after all. I have seen in this House an amendment passed by committee to which the government tried to propose a counter-amendment. I believe that was the case with the amendment saying that the security programs—I do not remember the bill number—had to respect provincial jurisdictions. This amendment had been adopted by the committee and then they tried to withdraw it in a rather stupid way.
When the majority in a committee adopts a motion or amendment, we know that this House also represents that majority. Consequently, I believe that this government is enjoying being humbled a bit, and is starting to like it, perhaps becoming a bit masochistic. This is not the first time such behaviour has been corrected in this House. It will not be the last time for the minority government.
(1050)
We are not doing it in order to humiliate anyone; we are doing it with the goal of better serving our citizens, the people of Quebec. By the same stroke, we think we are also serving the interests of people in the rest of Canada.
When we introduce such ideas, it forces the government to act. The government has some habits of arrogance, inefficiency and spending in sectors where they do not have jurisdiction. Thus, we believe we are improving things and doing our work.
Honestly, as this session ends—my first session—I am particularly proud of the Bloc Québécois caucus. They have been consistent, thorough and very hard-working, on the employment insurance issue, denouncing interference, amending the throne speech, and even achieving an eventual vote on the missile defence shield. The Bloc Québécois has ardently defended the values of Quebeckers, namely honesty and integrity. That is something grand. We have also introduced private members' bills. My colleague, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has done extraordinary work. But I do not want my other colleagues to be jealous. Every one of the Bloc Québécois MPs has done a truly remarkable job.
I am proud to belong to a caucus that has been working hard in committees come hell or high water. Recently, through the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds, we pushed for an independent fund and won. It is fantastic. I believe the unemployed expected nothing less from us.
Unfortunately the fact that the government went ahead and changed the EI premiums without any consultation and without addressing the fundamental unfairness of the system for first-time contributors shows its arrogance. It is clueless.
I now go back to Bill C-15. When one fights tooth and nail in committee claiming that a minimum fine for polluters is not desirable, one wonders who is being defended: the environment or certain polluters? And then we are told it is common sense. It is easy to see why, during the most recent election, voters were reluctant to trust a government whose ethical sense is blowing in the wind. People are fed up with this lack of moral fibre. They want their elected representatives to stand up for values, be consistent and not promise one thing in Newfoundland and another in Vancouver. The Liberals are disappointing everyone with their lack of substance and principles.
Again, the history of Bill C-15 might not be that glorious. Its predecessor, Bill C-34, was put forward in a rush before the election to appear proactive after years of doing nothing. Sometimes very good films are made in pain with actors fighting on the set. In this case we believe we will end up with a good movie after all even though it was directed by a bad government.
We support Bill C-15 even though its wording might have been made simpler by other people. We are still having doubts as to its enforcement though. We are not convinced the government's right hand knows what its left hand is doing. We hope the necessary resources will be put in place.
We know there have been several initiatives. For example, in Newfoundland, there is the I-Stop program that uses a satellite to track oil spills and eventually identify the nearest ship that might be responsible for them. Its interesting but not very effective at night.
Real resources are going to be needed. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and myself will push for progress reports on the implementation of the bill. We will not let it quietly drift along only to find out several years later that nothing has changed.
A total of 30,000 seabirds die each year in the Atlantic and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the same number of birds that died as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It is a huge number. We must act and take whatever measure is necessary to monitor our waters. The legislation must be enforced. Also, vessel owners, captains and all seamen must be made aware of their social responsibility. Should they be found guilty of neglect or pollution, they must be liable to real and significant fines as a disincentive to pollute and an incentive to protect the environment.
(1055)
This is what we want to achieve with this legislation that we have enhanced.
I want to thank the Conservatives for their cooperation. We put forward a more complete amendment than theirs. They recognized it and approved our amendment. I want to thank the Liberals for their belated conversion, despite all the bad faith and fearmongering we saw in committee. Still, they converted.
I believe that this bill, this Christmas gift, if put into effect, would protect our ecosystems, not only seabirds, but all marine ecosystems. At some point in their lives, all marine species—cod, halibut, smelt or crab—go through the larval stage and live as plankton, and if there is an oil slick above them, it would kill millions of future cod, halibut and turbot. So, this legislation is economic. It ensures preservation and sustainable development. It protects migratory birds and ecosystems.
The Bloc Québécois has considered and enhanced this bill. For the first time and hopefully not the last time, we have included tough minimum fines in a Canadian environmental act. Soon, we hope, these fines will no longer be tax deductible. Their being so is both outrageous and immoral.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-15 at this stage. This is a bill aimed at improving the situation concerning oil discharges, in the Atlantic in particular. This bill, comprised of some 45 pages, and intended to bring about some considerable improvements, has had the support of the Bloc Québécois in recent weeks and months.
Before going into further detail, I should point out that the House of Commons, during a previous session, had already dealt with a bill that was, to all intents and purposes, identical. That bill was C-34, which was essentially intended to bring about the changes we are looking at today.
As well, hon. members need to be reminded of how the government used its Liberal majority in the parliamentary committee at that time to ram the bill down the members' throats, to force them to endorse it, when the Bloc Québécois would have liked to have seen witnesses called in order for it to be improved upon.
I recall certain events during that session when the LIberals in this House simply made up their minds to push aside all essential debates on this matter. I was totally amazed when we came to examine Bill C-15 in parliamentary committee, where we had to really push to get witnesses allowed to appear. This was simply rejected out of hand by numerous committee members, on the grounds that what they would be telling us we had heard already, that it was just the same old, same old. Yet hon. members must keep in mind that the previous committee on the environment and sustainable development had never heard any witnesses on this aspect of Bill C-34.
We focused all our efforts and will on an in-depth study of the bill, not on delaying tactics. In fact, we improved it instead—I will go further into that shortly—by making the time for amendments to be proposed. That time was gained, in part through the efforts of my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou and myself, in order to come up with the bill as we have it before us today.
Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to correct the way or to provide more powers on the way the act must be enforced in Canada. It is aimed at increasing fines and penalties imposed on vessel owners who decide to be totally irresponsible when it comes to protecting the environment. It must be noted that this bill is aimed first at increasing, and I would even say at quadrupling fines currently imposed for oil discharges, particularly in the Atlantic region. It is aimed at quadrupling and increasing by up to $1 million fines imposed on a vessel that deliberately discharges oil.
(1100)
Moreover, and I will get back to this, concerning sanctions, the issue is not simply increasing them or establishing maximum amounts. The Bloc Québécois felt it essential that we establish a minimum threshold concerning sanctions and that we no longer let a judge alone decide sanctions. I will get back to this, because in parliamentary committee, we studied an amendment, which was introduced by my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou and was agreed to by the committee, that is precisely aimed at establishing a minimal threshold for penalties and fines when vessels and owners commit an offence.
In addition, the bill tries to maximize our chances of finding the culprits. Indeed, in the marine industry, it is quite often difficult, obviously, to identify vessel owners. Why? Because it is quite often difficult, when enforcing the act, to identify the culprits. That is why this industry has several numbered businesses. This is one of the industries where we find a significant number of numbered businesses, making it difficult for the government to enforce the act and to identify the culprits.
The bill seeks to ensure that the legislator will be able to lay charges not only against the owners but also against the employees of the company operating the ship caught polluting. Consequently, the bill quadruples the fines and provides the means by which to identify the guilty parties by attempting to target specifically the individual responsible.
Furthermore, the bill seeks to expand the area over which the legislation applies. This would mean that primary enforcement officers would be able to inspect and search polluting ships in Canadians ports and within a zone of over 200 nautical miles offshore.
Why is this so important? Because all too often, polluting ships discharge oily waste outside the area covered by the current legislation, which creates major loopholes for polluters. The new legislation will allow us to ensure that the guilty parties are punished. This bill seeks to expand the area covered by the legislation in order to eliminate obvious contradictions.
Finally, this bill expands the powers of Environment Canada to inspect, arrest and detain ships. I insist on this point, because, all too often in this House, we have seen the passing of bills that seek to increase the authority and weight of legislation. However, quite often, their enforcement leaves something to be desired. We end up with stiffer laws, but they are not enforced.
I am pleased to see that the bill will increase the enforcement powers regarding arrests and inspections. We are, however, in a position today to make the solemn commitment that the legislation will be enforced and that it will not be like other bills passed in this Parliament, which ultimately sought only to create legislation but without any real enforcement.
Consequently, we are quite pleased, but it is like the saying goes: we will have to wait and see. That is somewhat how the legislation ends, because that is the last of the four points I wanted to make. Naturally, the legislation needs to be improved, but will it truly be enforced? I have my doubts.
(1105)
However, we were not content with simply passing the bill. I will continue to be vigilant in committee. I remind the hon. members that when a bill is introduced, it is important to take the time to study it. It is not just a matter of listening to the minister and then passing it, clause by clause, at the same committee meeting. This is a totally irresponsible attitude, especially when witnesses indicate that they intend to appear.
We have a responsibility. Even if the witnesses themselves or their testimony does not really suit us, it is our responsibility to listen to them. Then we can decide whether to change the legislation or not. This period of time that we took together permitted the adoption of an amendment on minimum penalties. That is a first, a historic moment.
If we had not taken the time to think, this amendment probably would not have been adopted, and we would not have been able to introduce it in this House. The Chair would have told the hon. members quite rightly that they had had an opportunity to make the said changes in committee. But it was not the case.
I am proud today to remind the hon. members that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou got an amendment adopted in the in committee to have a minimum fine of $500,000 or $100,000 imposed, depending on the type of ship. This is a first in environmental matters. We should definitely be proud of it. What we are also proud of is the fact that the committee supported this amendment.
As I reminded the hon. members yesterday in this House, we also supported an amendment introduced by the government to ensure that the sums collected will not go to the consolidated revenue fund or to fund all sorts of sometimes questionable government activities. A fund will be created into which the money for the damages will be paid. We have a guarantee that the amounts that are collected will go into a compensation fund in case of discharges or other catastrophes.
We therefore have an imperfect bill. However, in the current situation, we managed to do things quickly, to be sure, but very effectively. As a result, this bill will return today to the Senate. On this side of the House, we have always hoped to proceed quickly so that the essence, the spirit of the bill, namely protecting birds, is implemented as soon as possible. We had to make these changes, which were necessary. Greater penalties were needed for people who decide to be totally irresponsible where the environment is concerned.
Today, I am back with the Bloc amendment. What we are about to vote on is quite unusual. We have to remember that the average fine set by Canadian judges for oil discharges is $30,000. This is peanuts for big corporations responsible for an oil discharge, like Canada Steamship Lines, for instance, or other multinationals.
(1110)
As I said before, a drop the size of a quarter is enough to kill a bird. Each year, more than 300,000 birds are killed by discharges by vessel owners. Up until now, how much were the fines imposed in Canada on large corporations like Canada Steamship Lines and others? The average fine set by judges in Canada is $30,000. That is 10 times less than in the United States and 15 times less than in Great Britain. For a big corporation like Canada Steamship Lines, $30,000 is peanuts.
The Bloc Québécois amendment finally provides for a minimum fine which we find acceptable for big corporations that often mistreat the crews working on their ships. The amount of the minimum fine will depend, of course, on the type of vessel.
Today, the end is near. We have before the House a bill which we hope the Senate will pass as soon as possible. Our laws are such that the fines for corporations or individuals who act irresponsibly are small. That is where this legislation will come into play.
It is thus with great pleasure that we will vote for Bill C-15 and for the amendment that was proposed by the government. What we wish for, and this is the last wish, is that we no longer experience what we went through with the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We adopted legislation, but, quite often, it is not enforced. I hope that the government will take note and put the means in place so that, finally, birds can be protected as they deserve to be.
(1115)
[English]
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks and for his contribution to the committee in the passing of the bill.
I have some sympathy with regard to his comments on what appeared to be the rushing of the bill through committee and the lack of opportunity for some witnesses to appear before it. We had a number of requests from some of the larger shipping companies and organizations to appear as witnesses before the committee. Apparently, the response was that the bill had been around, albeit in a different form, Bill C-34, for the past two years and that they had adequate notice.
The hon. member makes a very good point that we need to discuss these matters. I do not think we would have had the amendments, which have been spoken to so highly of on all sides of the House today, if we had not had this in committee for the length of time we did. This is an example of how well committees can cooperate, particularly in a minority government, to bring forward solid legislation.
I want to ask the hon. member about his comments with regard to Canada Steamship Lines. Was he suggesting that it was one of the major polluters? Is it correct that it had a record fine of up to $30,000? Is it his sense that the money collected should go more toward the cleanup, as the legislation suggests? Earlier we talked about including a provision to have some of the fine proceeds go toward additional surveillance and enforcement of the legislation.
Could the member comment on those issues?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I said that. I am not saying that Canada Steamship Lines is the greatest polluter; that is not necessarily what I am saying. However, there is a fact, and it is that, a few years ago, Canada Steamship Lines was fined for discharging oil in eastern Canada, in the Atlantic.
Canada Steamship Lines is a vessel owner, among many others, which, intentionally or not, also discharged oil in the Atlantic. It was found guilty and had to pay a fine.
What is important is to improve practices, because the risks are huge. I think this should cause us to reflect on the way that, strategically, we use oil. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago, there was an environmental disaster in the eastern part of the country. Of course, you will tell me that this was from a drilling platform, but we must find ways to ensure that this situation does not happen again.
I think that minimal fines are most certainly the best way to convince the major shipowners to change their practices. However, these fines, and the financial means the government will use, must not be used for anything other than cleanup. I think this is perfectly normal. In my view, the principle of precaution must prevail. We must be able to react quickly. We must not end up in the same situation that other departments are in.
I will give a very simple example. We notice that several departments, such as National Defence and Transport, are responsible for contaminated sites in many regions of Canada. They come up with decontamination plans, but the funding never follows. This kind of situation must come to an end.
If there are discharges, we will not be scrambling for the necessary funds to begin cleanup. A fund will be set up. Fines collected will go into this fund and we will be able to move quickly, which is much more efficient than the government's current tendency to identify contaminated sites and draft decontamination plans only to be without the necessary funds to follow through.
In my view, that is what this government amendment will help us to avoid. Most certainly, all government departments should have this same setup.
(1120)
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank and congratulate the member for the very effective manner in which he has brought the concerns with respect to this bill through the committee process to the House.
The member will recall that we heard testimony from witnesses from the Justice Department who indicated that a minimum fine might in fact go opposite to the impact we wish to achieve. A minimum fine was to make it very clear to polluters that they were going to be dealt with in a very punitive manner.
The theory went this way. A minimum fine of $500,000 for those ships over 5,000 tonnes might in fact be seen by the court to be overly punitive and might persuade the court not to deal with the intent of the maximum fine, such that the very opposite might be the case. Judges might be more convinced that because of the nature and magnitude of the fine, they might not apply that regime to those who allegedly had polluted the sea.
Does the member feel that this point of view had any validity? From his perspective, how would that amendment be even more effective in achieving the intent of the bill, which is to deal very effectively with those people who are polluting at sea?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, if we try this, history will be the judge. I understand what the Minister of Justice was talking about. On the other hand, in real life, the average fine is $30,000. I think that looks like a licence to pollute. Fining a big marine industry, shipowner or shipping company $30,000 for having discharged in our waters is completely irresponsible and ridiculous.
It is our duty to raise that penalty, perhaps quadrupling it, as the bill stipulates. We cannot accept such ridiculously low fines. It is very embarrassing when we compare our fines to those levied by our neighbours in the United States and Great Britain.
Current legislation and conditions may give big shipping companies and industries the impression they have permission to pollute. But that is not true. Legislators must send a clear message that such behaviour will not be tolerated. We will not leave it to the courts to decide this issue. Experience shows us that decisions here are quite different from those in the United States and elsewhere, and impose few constraints. In view of this situation, we, as legislators, must act.
If the courts had imposed fines of $200,000 on shipping companies for their illegal discharges, we would probably not have come to this stage, and the motion certainly would not have been introduced by the Bloc Québécois. We were forced to introduce this amendment because we concluded that the court-imposed penalties were ridiculously low. The bar had to be raised. We will see how things turn out. Perhaps this part of the law will be contested. Nevertheless, it is worth the trouble of making the amendment. I would like to see a shipping magnate take part in a public debate to argue that the minimum fine is too high. I do not think that will happen. We must assume our responsibilities.
The fines imposed by the court so far are not consistent with the degree of harm done to the environment and ecosystems by these bad practices. The fines we impose must be commensurate with the negative impact of those actions. If not, we will be sending the message that pollution is allowed, and up to a point, it pays well. For a major multinational, $30,000 is just peanuts. We have to send the opposite message. That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois's amendment, adopted by the committee, is intended to do.
(1125)
[English]
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.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004
Hon. Andy Scott (for the Minister of Finance) moved that Bill S-17, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
(1130)
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2004, at second reading.
This legislation would implement four new tax treaties that Canada has recently signed with Gabon, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan. The bill would also implement a new treaty with Ireland, replacing the older treaty that is already in effect.
These bills are simultaneously quite simple and yet exceedingly complex. For instance, the implementing part of the bill is relatively simple. The first section deals with the title; the second section deals with what a convention means; and the third section, which is probably the most critical section, indicates that the convention is approved and has the force of law in Canada. In effect, we are applying the rule of law to these treaties.
The fourth section deals with any inconsistencies between the tax regimes of these various countries and our own, and methods to resolve those inconsistencies. The fifth section deals with the opportunity for the national revenue minister to make any regulations which he may deem to be appropriate. The final section deals with the notification that the Minister of Finance must give in order to give the bill the force of law.
As I said, the bill is quite simple. There are only six sections in it and yet schedules 1 and 2 run 136 pages. They are sufficiently complex and there are not that many people in the House who would actually understand all of the nuances of those schedules, myself included.
The bill builds on Canada's well established network of tax treaties with other countries, which happens to be one of the most extensive of any country in the world. At present, we have 83 treaties in effect. The passage of Bill S-17 would make that 87. The new treaties would provide taxpayers and businesses, both in Canada and in these other countries, with more predictable and equitable tax results in their cross-border dealings.
Before discussing these treaties any further, I want to provide the House with a brief overview of the importance of tax treaties and why it is necessary for the bill to be passed.
As hon. members know, the government has long been committed to enhancing fairness in the tax system. These tax treaties contribute to that goal. Since income tax was first put in place back in 1917, Canada has taxed both the worldwide income of Canadian residents and the Canadian source income of non-residents.
All income of Canadian residents, whether earned here or abroad, is subject to tax in Canada. Non-residents, on the other hand, are taxed here only to the extent that they participate in the economic life of Canada or receive income from sources of business in Canada.
Tax treaties, or income tax conventions, or agreements as they are sometimes called, are an integral part of our tax system. Basically, they set out the degree to which one country can tax the income of a resident of another country.
The benefits to Canada having tax treaties in place with other countries are significant. We already have 83 in place which attests to this fact. For example, tax treaties provide certainty on how Canadians will be taxed abroad. At the same time, they assure our treaty partners of how their residents will be treated in Canada. Tax treaties also benefit the Canadian economy by contributing to a sound framework for international trade and investment.
There are definite economic disadvantages for countries that do not enter into tax agreements with other countries. The absence of such agreements can have harmful effects on the economic relations between countries. I will explain that.
The absence of tax treaties makes the threat of double taxation a great concern to taxpayers. Double taxation occurs when a taxpayer lives in one country and earns income in another. Without a tax treaty in place to set out the tax rules, the same income can be taxed in both countries without consequential relief. This situation can have a negative impact on the expansion of trade, and the movement of capital and labour between countries.
It is only natural that investors, traders and others with international dealings want to know how they will be taxed before they commit to doing business in the country. For example, when considering doing business in Canada, foreign investors and traders are anxious to know the tax implications associated with their activities in that country. They also want assurances that they will be treated fairly.
Tax treaties establish rules as to how the tax regime of one country would interact with that of another, thus removing much of the uncertainty about the tax implications associated with doing business, working, or otherwise earning income from abroad.
(1135)
It is important to note the fact that tax treaties are international agreements that require official notice be given before they can be terminated. That in itself adds to a degree of certainty. The tax rules range from an allocation of taxing rights between the two countries to the establishment of a mechanism to resolve tax disputes between those countries.
All these measures promote certainty and stability and help produce a better business climate.
Tax treaties, including the ones enacted in the bill, are especially designed to facilitate trade, investment and other activities between Canada and its treaty partners. They are developed with two main objectives in mind.
The first, and probably the most important, objective of tax treaties is to avoid double taxation and provide a level of certainty about the tax rules that apply to international transactions.
The second objective of tax treaties is to encourage cooperation between tax authorities in Canada and the treaty countries to prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Tax treaties play an important role in protecting Canada's tax base by allowing information to be exchanged between our revenue authorities and their counterparts in countries with which we have tax treaties.
I would like to return to the issue of double taxation. Relief from double taxation is so very necessary and deserves to be discussed in some detail. The potential arises when a taxpayer lives in one country and earns income in another. Without a tax treaty, both countries could claim tax on the income without providing the taxpayer with any measures of relief for the tax paid in the other country. This is simply unfair.
To alleviate the potential for this happening, a tax treaty between the two countries allocates taxing authority with respect to a given item of income in one of three ways: first, the income may be taxed exclusively in the country in which it arises; second, it may be taxed in the country in which the taxpayer resides; or, it may be taxable in both the source country and the residence country, with relief from double taxation provided in some form, usually the country of residence.
For example, if a Canadian resident employed by a Canadian company is sent on a short term assignment, say for three months in any one of the five countries talked about in this bill, Canada has the exclusive right to tax that person's employment income. However, in the case of most items of income and capital, the right to tax is shared, although for certain types of income, such as dividends and interest, the rate of tax that may be imposed in the state of source is limited.
Put another way, the treaties in the bill contain provisions that would alleviate the requirement for taxpayers in one country who carry on business in the treaty partner country to pay tax in the treaty partner country on their business profits earned in that country if they are not meaningful participants in the economic life of that country.
There is another aspect of tax treaties that I want to discuss, and that is the importance of withholding taxes. Bill S-17 provides for several withholding tax rate reductions.
Withholding taxes are a common feature of the international taxation system. In Canada's case, they are levied on certain payments that Canadian residents make to non-residents. These payments include interest, dividends and royalties, for example. Withholding taxes are often levied by a country on the gross amount of certain types of income paid to non-residents and such taxes normally represent the non-resident's final obligation with respect to income tax payable in that country with respect to that particular income.
The tax treaties in the bill all provide for certain reductions in withholding tax rates. For example, without a treaty or other legislated exemption, Canada taxes various categories of income paid to non-residents at the rate of 25%. Most of Canada's trading partners impose a similar level of withholding tax.
However, withholding taxes do not provide for the deductability of expenses incurred in generating income and are imposed on the gross amount of the payment. The taxpayer will therefore be subject to an effective rate that is significantly higher than the tax rate that applies to net income in either the source or the residence country.
(1140)
To remedy this, Canada's network of tax treaties limits the rate of withholding tax that can be withheld by the source country on various types of income so as to more accurately reflect the level of taxes that would be payable on a net income basis. Consequently, the treaties in the bill provide various limits, usually at the rate of 5%, 10% or 15% on dividends, depending on the circumstances, and 10% on the case of interest in royalties. In some instances, royalties paid for through the use of copyright, computer software, patents and know-how are completely exempt from withholding tax.
Finally, these treaties also implement other measures which ensure that tax consequences of certain transactions are in line with Canadian tax policy. Unfortunately, time does not permit to go into details about these matters today, to the great disappointment of my colleagues opposite.
However, I do want to point out that Bill S-17 is standard routine legislation. Part of the fact is that these treaties, like their predecessors, are modelled on the OECD model tax convention, which is accepted by most countries around the world. The provisions in these particular treaties comply fully with the international norms that apply to such treaties.
Bill S-17 also addresses fair taxation and good, international trade relations.
Fairness in the tax system which, as we all know, is an ongoing priority of the government, demands that Canadians should not find themselves subject to double taxation. Nor should there be any evasion or avoidance of taxes. That is what these tax treaties work to do: eliminate double taxation and prevent tax evasion and avoidance.
Other meaningful benefits will also result once these treaties come into force. The treaties covered under Bill S-17 also address a number of the important tax treaty histories such as the taxation of capital gains realized on the alienation of foreign properties, the taxation of pensions and annuities paid to non-residents as well the prevention of a discrimination based upon a taxpayers nationality.
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, Bill S-17 represents a part of Canada's ongoing efforts to expand its network of tax treaties with other countries. The benefits of the proposed legislation are clear. I therefore encourage all hon. members to support the bill.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the parliamentary secretary. I would guess that a bill like this works into the overall context of coming up with fair taxation policies between all the countries of the world, and this is just the latest instalment. It brings Canada into agreement with a number of countries to ensure that people are treated fairly. This is presumably a step forward for Canadians who live in Gabon or those from Gabon who live in Canada as well as the other countries mentioned.
I was interested in what the parliamentary secretary had to say on the bill. The contents of the bill are perfectly reasonable and of course are a step in the right direction. I hope the parliamentary secretary would agree with me that more has to be done between Canada and other countries of the world.
I would like to bring to his attention one of the unfairnesses that exists between Canada and, my example, that of the United Kingdom.
There is a treaty between Canada and Great Britain that protects individuals against double taxation. Of course that would be a very important one. As important as the countries are, as listed by the parliamentary secretary, hundreds of thousands of people who originally lived or were citizens of the United Kingdom now reside in Canada and vice versa. It is a very important relationship.
Therefore, I would like to bring to his attention a matter that has been brought to my attention. That is the treatment of pensions of individuals who live in one or the other countries. Specifically, I have individuals in my riding, and of course individuals throughout Canada, who have obtained a pension from the United Kingdom for whatever reason, but those pensions are not indexed. We have the situation where people may have emigrated from Britain say in 1970, they become entitled to a British pension, but their pensions are not indexed. Once one makes inquiries as to why they are not indexed, they say that there is no reciprocal treaty between Canada and the United Kingdom.
For instance, if a Canadian goes to the United Kingdom, there is no arrangements to have these pensions indexed. It seems to me that might be an area for the parliamentary secretary and the department to look into. We want to ensure that Canadians who live in Great Britain and British citizens who live in Canada get every benefit.
I know if one is entitled to American social security, that is indexed even though one is a resident of Canada and likewise if one is a Canadian citizen living in the United States. There is no problem with the indexing of Canadian pensions.
My understanding is that all this would take is an agreement that both countries would do it for the residents of each other's country. It seems in line with what the parliamentary secretary said about increasing the fairness to citizens who live abroad. This is something else I hope he would add to the list of things I am sure he is looking into.
(1145)
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, it must be Christmas because I agree with the member. It is well said, and he raises a very valid point. The issue is the indexation of the pensions, and there is not a reciprocal indexation from the British authorities.
I can recollect a specific meeting with the High Commissioner on this very point, with colleagues from our party, his and others as well. Frankly, the High Commissioner was not very satisfactory in his answer with respect to the indexation.
In the member's second point, as to whether this can be included in a tax convention, I am hesitant to give a straightforward answer on that point. The issue is indexation of the pension rather than the taxation of the pension. Generally, treaties deal with the taxation of the pension, not the indexation, because pensions get treated as income.
I would finally note that Canada does have a tax treaty with the United Kingdom. It is one of the 83, about to 87, countries with which we have concluded a treaty. However, I do not know frankly what will persuade British authorities to treat Canadians living in Canada who receive British pensions properly.
I welcome the member's comments, and I think he is spot on.
* * *
[Translation]
Business of the House
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member, but this will not take too long.
Discussions have been held among all parties, and if you were to seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:
|
That, following Private Members' Business today, the House continue to sit, in committee of the whole, no later than 9 p.m., to consider the situation facing the textile industry. That, during the debate, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. |
|
That all speeches be limited to a maximum of ten minutes and be followed by a period of five minutes for questions and comments. And, when no member rises to speak or at 9 p.m., whichever comes first, the Chair shall leave the Chair, and the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day. |
I believe there is consent from all parties.
(1150)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-17, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for very long on this fairly straightforward bill originating in the Senate, as is the tradition with these tax treaties.
Effectively, just to sum up, it brings about tax treaties with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Gabon and Oman. The idea is to ensure that we do not have double taxation for people who may be Canadian nationals living in one of these countries, for instance, so that they do not end up paying tax twice on income that they have received. The other part of it is to ensure that information is shared between countries so that we do not have a problem with tax evasion.
This is something that is eminently supportable, but of course I would be remiss if I did not stand up and say how much we regret that this is not a bill that brings about the reduction of taxes within Canada. I simply have to point that out. I never miss an opportunity to do that, especially as we get close to Christmas and people are struggling to find ways to meet their obligations. They are running out to the stores right now and purchasing gifts. It would be great if this were a bill to cut taxes. Sadly, it is not.
I simply want to say that the only concern the Conservative Party of Canada has with this is not really a concern with the bill. It is our hope that the government will use these new arrangements that we have with these countries to push to ensure that these countries are in fact respecting human rights.
We did a quick search on different websites to look at the human rights records of some of these countries. For instance, the human rights record in Azerbaijan is not good. In fact, it is deplorable.
While it is important to engage these countries on issues like a tax treaty, now that we have that kind of arrangement I hope the government will use its leverage with countries like Azerbaijan to insist that human rights be respected in these places. Their records are not good. If they are going to enjoy the popular support of countries around the world, they simply have to bring their countries into the 21st century and ensure that they do in fact respect fundamental human rights. That is certainly not too much to ask.
That is really all I have to say on this issue. The Conservative Party supports the idea of tax treaties. We support the idea of ensuring that there is commonality between countries when it comes to treatment of income. That is pretty fundamental.
I will simply end by saying once again that we very much look forward to the day when the parliamentary secretary stands up and brings in a tax bill that calls for a reduction in taxes so that in fact Canadians can enjoy more of their own income, which they work so hard to earn.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): As I say, Mr. Speaker, it really must be Christmas because I find myself in agreement with almost everything that the member opposite brings forward.
I want to go to the substantive point of his speech, which had to do with the effect on human rights that entering into these treaties may or may not have. This actually came up when the bill was first presented to the Senate. We had some very thoughtful discussion about whether it is good to enter into a tax treaty arrangement with a country that routinely abuses human rights. The member pointed to one example and there are certainly others where we are carrying on negotiations.
As a point of philosophy or a point of principle, does the member for Medicine Hat think it is a good idea to enter into tax conventions and treaties with a country that abuses human rights or should we restrict ourselves only to tax treaties and conventions with countries that have better human rights records?
(1155)
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I would say that I think this is a strategic decision that countries make probably very often in coordination with other countries when one particular country may be behaving in some cases in a way that most of us find to be reprehensible. I think it is a strategic decision that countries may make.
We run into this all the time. Countries get together and ask whether they should expel a particular country from the Commonwealth, for example. I think a judgment has to be made based on that particular situation.
I would say as a rule that I think it is probably a good idea to engage these countries to a large degree. I would point to the case of China. The experience has been that certainly in the case of China engagement has moved the yardsticks forward. China, for instance, has a long way to go when it comes to the issue of human rights. In fact, it has a terrible record when it comes to that, but there are new freedoms in China that did not exist before countries engaged it, and that is a good thing.
While it probably would not be responsible to generalize based on a particular example, I think there is some evidence to show that when we do engage very often it does lead to progressive improvement in human rights. I hope that will be the case when it comes to some of the countries we are engaging with in this particular tax treaty.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member for Medicine Hat on his comments to the House on this particular bill. I was interested in some comments he made toward the end that reiterated a point he made earlier, which was that he would have been pleased to have seen something come forward from the government that would result in tax cuts, and that while it is supportable that we are moving ahead to avoid double taxation, I think he quite correctly points out that most Canadians would be very pleased to get some sort of tax break. Certainly they have not seen it from the government.
The parliamentary secretary said, and I think I am quoting him, that he agrees with just about everything that the member for Medicine Hat said. Since the member for Medicine Hat made a point on two occasions in his speech of mentioning that he would like to see tax cuts, I suppose one could take some comfort from that, but this brings me to the question I want to ask the member for Medicine Hat.
He said in his concluding remarks that he looks forward to the day when he sees the government come forward with a bill that will cut taxes for Canadians. It is on this point that I want to ask him a question.
After seeing the performance of the government, does he think that is a realistic option? Is that just something that he hopes to see from the government? Or is it more realistic to say that Canadians will have to wait until the member for Medicine Hat is part of a government and he brings in those tax cuts? I would ask him to comment on that.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying how important it is that we have tax relief in Canada. Canada is falling behind in terms of productivity, our ability to compete, and therefore our standard of living remains much lower than that of our major trading partner, the United States. This is not just my opinion. This is a fact. It has been attested to over and over again by witnesses appearing before the finance committee.
That is regrettable, because Canada is a wealthy country in a sense. We have a wealth of resources. We have a wealth of human potential and talent. Unfortunately, because of public policy decisions, namely, taxes that are too high, we are not able to exploit that and we are not able to generate as much wealth as we could.
Therefore, all kinds of people who could be employed today remain unemployed. People who could have better jobs are underemployed. The result is that they do not have the income and the capacity to provide for themselves and their families that they otherwise would.
As to whether or not the government can do it, certainly this government is running surpluses in Canada today thanks to the efforts of hard-working taxpayers. However, the government has decided that increasing spending year after year is a much higher priority than tax relief. That is truly regrettable, especially considering how often the government wastes money on all kinds of boondoggles.
I could go on and on about that. I have given that speech many times in the House and the parliamentary secretary is throwing up his hands and saying, “don't do that again”, so I will not. Suffice it to say that we could have tax relief in Canada, but I do not expect it from this government any time soon, regrettably.
(1200)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill S-17, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. This gives me an opportunity to denounce once again a scandal, and the word is not too strong. I am talking about the tax convention between Canada and Barbados.
Obviously, where the tax system of the foreign countries involved is similar to ours, the Bloc Québécois will not oppose the principle of bills like this one. Indeed, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, it makes no sense to pay tax twice on the same income: once in the country where this income was earned, and again in Canada, because the taxpayer in question happens to be a Canadian citizen.
We are therefore totally in favour of tax conventions ensuring that income on which tax is paid in a signatory country is not taxed again in Canada.
We must remember that the principle of Bill S-17, like all the other conventions, is to not double tax taxpayers and not to prevent or spare them from paying income tax. In so doing, both countries, that is, Canada and the other country with which a tax convention was signed, must have a system where the income tax paid is for real, and not for show, and totally superficial like what we see in tax havens.
This brings me to the tax convention between Canada and Barbados. That convention allows Canadian taxpayers, Canadian citizens, be they individuals or corporations operating or appearing to operate in Barbados, to evade tax in Canada. That is not the intention of the bill before us or other tax conventions previously debated in this House.
As for Barbados, it is the only tax haven widely recognized by experts worldwide with which Canada has signed a tax convention. Barbados is known internationally as Canada's tax haven, for wealthy companies and Canadian taxpayers. In this regard, the government cannot plead ignorance.
On many occasions in the past, the Bloc Québécois and other opposition parties have denounced this situation. We are not the only ones. The auditor general and his successor, on many occasions, have also denounced this convention that allows Canadian corporations and individual taxpayers to avoid paying taxes.
Keep in mind that taxes are used to pay for the collective tools we give ourselves as a society. So every time taxpayers dodge their responsibilities by using a tax haven or any other kind of tax evasion scheme, they are not living up to their responsibility to the community. It is a very serious attack against social and moral solidarity.
Worse yet, taxpayers like you and me, who live up to their obligations and pay their taxes in full both to the federal government and the provincial government--the Quebec government in my case--are paying more taxes because those taxpayers, corporations or individuals, are not doing their fair share. As a result, the average tax burden of those who do pay their taxes is getting heavier. The middle class is left holding the bag.
It is extremely important. Indeed, as the auditor general said, it is not only eroding the tax base but also sowing the seeds of cynicism among Canadians and Quebeckers. As a result, now everybody sees nothing wrong in taking advantage of tax loopholes, one way or another and on a small scale, of course. Working for pay under the table is a case in point.
So on fiscal, ethical and social cohesion grounds, it has become urgent to close this loophole, the tax convention with Barbados.
(1205)
Again, I point out that this no coincidence. The federal government, and particularly the current Prime Minister when he was Minister of Finance, arranged the income tax regulations to promote tax avoidance through Barbados, our tax haven.
The result is that, with a population of 272,000—which is the equivalent of a Montreal neighbourhood—Barbados has become the third destination for Canadian capital and direct investments abroad. It is right behind the United States—which is understandably our number one destination—and Great Britain.
Are these direct investments from Canada being made to take advantage of economic development opportunities offered by Barbados? Maybe so in some cases, but definitely not to the extent that we are talking about. When the number three foreign destination for direct investments has a population of barely a quarter of a million people, I think there is more than meets the eye.
It is easy to see that most of this money—although not all of it—comes from Canada's major banks. They use the tax convention with Barbados to avoid fulfilling their responsibilities in terms of income tax or benefits. They are taking advantage of the situation that the federal government, the current Prime Minister and former Minister of Finance, created by extending the tax convention with Barbados.
As I mentioned earlier, Barbados is a small island of a quarter of a million people and it is the third destination for direct investments from Canada. To give an idea of the scope and extent of this phenomenon, and therefore of the urgent need to condemn this tax convention, Canada's financial transfers to Barbados went from $5.1 billion in 1994—the year the Liberals first took office—to $23.9 billion in 2002. This is an increase of close to 400% in nine years.
The government would have us believe that there are investment opportunities in Barbados that justify such an increase. We are not stupid. Canadians and Quebeckers are not fooled, as the outcome of the June 28 election indicates.
The government has an opportunity to again raise the matter of this tax convention and, as I mentioned earlier, to remedy the situation. I have another figure which will show once again how absurd the situation is. Since 1988, Canadian investments in Barbados have increased by 3,600%. Once again, it seems to me that, despite the business opportunities which this magnificent island in the Caribbean might offer, it cannot absorb these investments entirely. Therefore, it may easily be inferred that Canadian businesses and taxpayers have used this tax loophole, the tax convention between Barbados and Canada.
Since 1996, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the Canadian government to beef up its international service in order to be able to discourage tax avoidance through tax havens. As I said, Barbados is the only tax haven we have a tax treaty with. It is the only one with which we have officialized and institutionalized tax avoidance. Nevertheless, tax havens as a whole are a problem. They are a problem for Canada and also for most other jurisdictions.
Again, since 1996, The Bloc Québécois has been calling for a comprehensive reform of Canadian taxation and will continue to do so, as I am doing today. We must eliminate all tax loopholes that enable companies to get out of paying their fair share of taxes, while the average taxpayer bears the brunt of this. People who cannot use such tools end up paying the bill. This mechanism was established by the Liberal government for the benefit of wealthy businesses and individuals.
(1210)
We must also look at the very close link between money in tax havens and money laundering. Studies have been done to that effect by FATF, the group that examines the issue of money laundering and finding ways to counter it. I believe that FATF is celebrating its tenth anniversary this year.
This special group made up of OECD countries has found that 25% of the money currently kept in tax havens is laundered money. In other words, the money that comes from fraudulent and illegal activities, such as drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and other such organized crime activities that, unfortunately, are being conducted throughout the world. These organized groups, especially those with warring or terrorist intentions, also use these tax havens to transfer money for carrying out their sinister plans.
There is a certain irresponsibility. As I mentioned, the Canadian government is not alone in this. The U.S. government, the British government and most western governments seem to be hypocrites. On one hand, they say they want to prevent money laundering and to fight terrorism, while on the other hand they maintain mechanisms such as the Canada-Barbados tax convention, which facilitates not only tax avoidance but the transfer of money for terrorist purposes.
If they were at least consistent and honest, if they had the political will to truly put an end to this financial pipeline provided by tax havens to terrorist groups, they would address this issue seriously.
A type of hypocrisy exists. At first, outside of FATF, other groups and governments, the U.S. and Canadian governments in particular, had shown a desire not only to prevent money laundering, but to gain real control over tax avoidance. It seems that in time, the groups working on this problem, FATF in particular, dropped the second element and dealt only with the issue of money laundering for terrorist activity purposes.
This is totally irresponsible and impossible. As long as there are tax havens, it will be impossible to stop money laundering. As long as there are tax havens, it will be impossible to prevent various groups from using them to launder money for terrorist activities. So, we must attack the very existence of these tax havens.
In her recent report on money laundering, the Auditor General says that the federal government has done very little. I am surprised that she does not make a more direct link among tax havens, money laundering and terrorism.
I want to focus on tax havens. Perhaps viewers would like to know a little about how to identify a tax haven. In 1998, the OECD gave it the following definition. First, it is a country that generally imposesno or only nominal tax on income. Second, there is noeffective exchange between countries of relevant information for tax purposes. A few years ago, Barbados announced it intended to improve the exchange of information. To my knowledge, no efforts have been made to do this.
Third, a tax haven is defined by the lack of transparency of legislation or taxation regulations; this is the famous bank secrecy. The fourth factor is the absence of substantial activities. As we know, real activity must be conducted in one location in order to benefit from a tax treaty, under Canadian legislation. Taxpayers who, to avoid paying taxes, put their savings or dividends in a bank account in a tax haven cannot legally use tax treaties to this end.
In 1972, we rectified this situation by making a distinction between passive activity, or simply depositing money in a bank account, and active activity, a real activity in economic terms, meaning providing a service or manufacturing a good. The fourth factor used to identify a tax haven is a lack of substantial activity, meaning that the standards for determining a real activity are extremely low.
(1215)
In 1998, the OECD identified 35 tax havens, based on four criteria: no taxes, no effective exchange of tax information, no transparency, and no substantial business activities. Hon. members will not be surprised that Barbados was among these. I would also point out that Canada was one of the 47 countries listed with particularly lax laws concerning tax havens.
What follows is important because of the debate prior to the June 28 election. A number of editorial writers in the Quebec press in particular serve as Liberal mouthpieces, and this is my main source of news—though I do occasionally enjoy a look at the press in English Canada. In the year 2000, the OECD changed its definition of a tax haven, focussing more on the non-cooperating aspect.
As I have already said, following on that decision by the OECD to focus differently on the tax haven situation, Barbados announced its intention to take on slightly greater transparency in passing tax data on to other countries and jurisdictions. As a result of that commitment, the OECD decided not to keep Barbados on the list of uncooperative tax havens. This does not, however, change the fact that Barbados is still a tax haven.
What we heard from the federal Liberals, from the government side, was “Just look at the OECD listing”. It is true that Barbados was on it in 1998, but not in 2000. These two lists were not the same. In 2000, the list was of tax havens according to the OECD, based on the four criteria I mentioned. The focus in 2000 was more on lack of cooperation, particularly in connection with the campaign against terrorism. So the same things are not involved. After the definition's focus was changed, nine countries were still on the list. No one is going to convince me, however, that a list of 35 countries identified as tax havens in 1998 by the OECD was suddenly transformed into a list with only 9 countries on it, with the flick of a magic wand.
As I have said, the change was due to a change of focus by the OECD. I should add it is well known behind the scenes at the OECD that Canada, the United States and Great Britain lobbied a great deal to get Barbados struck off the list of uncooperative tax havens.
I said that because the subject will certainly be coming up again. When they talk about the tax treaty between Canada and Barbados, they will tell us that Barbados is not one of the countries the OECD considers to be tax havens. Once again—and I say this for those watching at home—we must not be fooled. The OECD is no longer worried about such things. Those countries that have disappeared from the OECD's list are the ones called uncooperative tax havens. Therefore, all those that intend to cooperate, or actually do so, are not on the list, although they are still tax havens according to the four criteria I just listed.
I would like, if I might, to return to the figures on Canadian direct investments abroad, because I think they are quite extraordinary. Everyone understands why the United States is the primary destination for Canadian direct investments. Just now, I mentioned that Barbados was the third on that list. The second destination is the group of countries consisting of Barbados, the Bahamas and Bermuda, three small island countries with small populations. Canadian investment in these three little island countries was $38.71 billion in 2001. That was more than the U.K.
(1220)
Although the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-17, we must take this opportunity to speak out against this tax agreement between Canada and Barbados once again. With regard to real, legal activities, we would be in agreement, but this convention is full of holes at present.
Moreover, the company that formerly belonged to the Prime Minister has—unfortunately—profited from this. I am speaking of CSL International,which has, according to our calculations and thanks to this convention full of holes, saved nearly $103 million in income tax over the five years we examined.
I hope that by the time of the next election, the Liberals will understand what they have to do, look right into those holes, and correct this Canada-Barbados tax convention.
[English]
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to the hon. member's long rant about so-called tax havens. It is hard to know where to start with such a naive analysis of the international taxation regimes in the world.
Everyone in the chamber, everyone watching us on television and everyone in this country is entitled to arrange his or her affairs, his or her own affairs, or his or her company's affairs to avoid taxes, to minimize the impact of taxes. That is lesson number one in law school and accounting school. Tax avoidance is an expectation on the part of the government and taxpayers are entitled to arrange their affairs accordingly. You do that, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend does that. Everyone in the chamber does that. We try to minimize the tax impact on our income.
Tax evasion on the other hand is illegal. Tax evasion cannot be tolerated by any country whether or not one is in a so-called haven or whether one is in any other country.
It is amusing to me that my hon. friend conflates those two ideas and misses the point. It is more than ironic that the member purports to speak on behalf of Quebec. His separatist friends, the Parti Québécois, turned Quebec into not a tax haven but probably a tax hell. There the rates of taxation on the people of Quebec are probably among the highest, if not the highest, in North America.
If a person in Quebec or a person in any other part of Canada, or a corporation in Quebec or a corporation in any other part of Canada takes the first rule of income tax seriously and says “I am entitled to arrange my affairs in the way that is most advantageous”, in other words to avoid taxes, not to evade taxes, then he, she or it is entitled to seek the jurisdiction that most satisfies those needs.
What the hon. member fails to state in his diatribe about so-called tax havens is that the information exchange and the transparency allow countries that have entered into tax treaties with the so-called tax havens to tax income that is earned as a source income in Canada. Absent these treaties there is virtually no chance.
As I understand the thrust of my hon. member's diatribe, he would pull us out of any tax convention with any other country which does not tax at the level that he thinks is appropriate. Therefore a taxpayer would be left with some unhappy choices.
I put it to my hon. friend that having a tax convention, such as the one with Barbados and others that he disapproves of, is a good thing. Canadian authorities get access to information on which they can tax income that is sourced in Canada, that is earned in Canada which impacts many of these companies, especially companies from Quebec, that do some business in the Caribbean. Banks do some business in the Caribbean on which they pay taxes. Much of those taxes, because of the transparency and the OECD protocols, gets reviewed here and taxed as Canadian source income. Absent these conventions, absent these rules, we would see none of the income.
I put it to the hon. member that the entire premise of his speech is in error.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will probably not have enough time to reply to all the wonderful questions I have just heard. However, if the parliamentary secretary is serious and really thinks that Barbados, which has a rate of between 1% and 2 1/2% on profits, is not a tax haven, he is not in the right place. We are not talking about identical systems but about comparable systems.
In the case of Barbados, it is not a matter of double taxation but of tax avoidance. I was therefore careful to use the words—perhaps they were misinterpreted by the translators—“tax avoidance”. I did not speak of tax evasion. There is tax avoidance in the case of Barbados because it was the finance minister, now the Prime Minister, who changed the rules to ensure that it was not tax evasion.
There is a serious problem now. If the parliamentary secretary saw the show Enjeux, which was televised last spring, he saw journalists going to Barbados to see where the headquarters of CSL International were. They found that there were nine CSL companies under the same heading, whereas normally, Canadian law provides that there must be real business activities. There are apparently three people who work for these nine CSL companies, including CSL International. However, the receptionist was only able to name one person.
ATTAC-Québec has now filed a complaint against CSL International and the CSL Group to see whether there really were some business activities, in accordance with the tax treaty and with Barbados law and Canadian law. This is therefore something that should be followed.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak to the bill until I heard the parliamentary secretary's attack on the Bloc member who just spoke.
I found it astounding that what we heard from the parliamentary secretary was effectively an elaborate defence of countries that make tax evasion legal. What he said was that tax avoidance was something that everyone does and that countries are a party to and so on.
However what he did not say is that we have a hemorrhage of taxes that ought to be paid by Canadian corporations to the public coffers to sustain our most important public services and programs precisely because the government refuses to do anything about the fact that the law does not capture those taxes properly.
While we heard the parliamentary secretary say that it was quite legal for people to avail themselves of tax havens, the previous member quite rightly pointed out that we needed to do something about the problem.
A great deal of analysis has been done on this but the parliamentary secretary treated the member's comment as though the member was somehow dreaming it up for some paranoid reason or some unduly partisan reason. The member was speaking of a very respectable body of research done by tax accountants and economists that points out the incredibly low levels of taxes that Canadian companies are paying in places such as Barbados and many other countries simply because they are completely free to do so.
While Canadians pay their fair share of taxes, we have examples of the major banks. It does not matter which bank but the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce happens to be the one at the centre of this particular analysis. This bank, which would have and should have been paying taxes in the amount of $844 million, was able to reduce that legally, because we do not have any tax agreements to capture this, to $239 million.
I know that seems like a lot of taxes but we have to consider the fact that instead of paying at a rate of 36.6% on the profits, the bank was actually paying only 10.4%. The result is that the government uses the fact that we do not have the tax dollars to maintain our basic programs very conveniently.
Earlier today the parliamentary secretary stood and agreed with an opposition member who said that we should do something about the problem of pensions not being indexed in the U.K.
We should also be addressing a problem that has been raised again and again by the member for Windsor—St. Clair and the member for Windsor West about completely unfair taxation, practically tax confiscation, that penalizes Canadians--
(1230)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Joliette.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the hon. members that when CSL International was founded in 1992, its headquarters were in Liberia, a tax haven, as everyone knows.
Under pressure from the Americans, especially President Clinton, the current Prime Minister and finance minister at the time, tightened the tax criteria. Liberia was excluded from the countries that could take advantage of a certain number of tax benefits.
At that point, CSL International moved its headquarters to Barbados. If one moves from Liberia, which is a tax haven, to Barbados, it is probably because the latter has tax advantages under the treaty that was signed with it, advantages that do not exist elsewhere. Otherwise, they would just have brought the headquarters back to Montreal, which would have been the logical thing to do.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill S-17. It is an important discussion on tax policy in general and the degree to which we allow for tax avoidance or tax evasion. It has been a very curious intervention by the parliamentary secretary for finance with his suggestion that there are certain appropriate ways in which one should be allowed to avoid paying taxes in the context of the bill.
Bill S-17 on its own is a reasonable initiative on the part of the government. If one looks at it in isolation just for its own merits and in terms of the specific provisions in the bill, it is clearly an improvement in terms of the overall situation we are grappling with today. It is a bill that seeks to implement new tax conventions and treaties between Canada and the countries of Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan.
It is an important initiative because the bill attempts to ensure that there is a way to avoid double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. We know from previous speeches on this matter, and I refer specifically to the interventions by Senator Mac Harb, who at the time was spokesperson in the House on this bill, that Canada has been trying to increase the number of tax treaties in place and through this bill would increase those treaties to 87.
The senator went on to suggest that Canada had signed treaties or amended protocols with an additional 14 countries since 1976. However what was done in this instance and what is still a problem today is that the government has refused to address where such tax havens continue to exist and has failed to account for its tardiness in ensuring treaties are signed and precautions are taken with respect to tax havens between Canada and a number of other countries.
Before I address the concerns of many groups with respect to tax havens and tax evasion, it is always important to talk about tax policy in general and public policies that address the matter of productivity. In that context it is fair to point out that for all the rhetoric and all the protestations by Liberal members in the House on both these issues, we have yet to see a comprehensive, meaningful and progressive set of ideas or policies with respect to taxation in general and on our collective agenda to ensure a more progressive tax system so that those with the ability to pay are taxed accordingly and those at the lower end of the income scale are able to benefit from the riches accrued as a result of development and investments in this country.
We have heard a great deal from the government in the past about how it has put in place such a progressive taxation policy and how it has ensured that our taxation initiatives today help ensure that low income people are given some tax relief. However, as we look at this whole issue in the context of Bill S-17, the government has missed the boat and has neglected its responsibility in terms of ensuring a fair taxation system where those with the greatest burden and the greatest need are able to reap the greatest benefits from our policies.
Instead of ensuring such an approach, we have seen over the last number of years a government that continues to provide tax relief for those who have the most ability to handle that tax load. The government has provided tax relief for the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals in our society and done little to deal with the burden facing low and middle income earners.
(1235)
Over the past number of years the government has used a considerable portion of the available surplus to provide tax relief for wealthy individuals and large corporations. We continue to be astounded at the fact that the government had the audacity to bring in a $200 billion tax initiative spread out over five years to benefit the wealthiest in our society while those at the bottom continue to struggle.
The other issue that has to be addressed is productivity and the role of corporations in that regard. The finance committee has just been through numerous debates leading up to the finalization of our report on pre-budget consultations. I was surprised at how often Liberals spoke about the need to provide more tax breaks for large corporations through the taxation system and their suggestion that in order to be competitive with the United States we had to continue to reduce the taxes on corporations.
That approach has been tried but we have not seen much benefit over the last number of years. The government continually focuses on corporate tax relief in the hope that it will increase productivity and boost our economy but we have not seen that. We have not seen the kinds of benefits that the Liberals espouse as they pursue this narrow program of tax benefits for the wealthy and money being set aside for lowering the debt without considering the impact on low and middle income Canadians.
Unfortunately, after trying this for a good number of years and seeing no results we still have a government that is wedded to an idea that has no basis in fact and for which there is no scientific evidence to suggest that approach should be continued.
In the context of Bill S-17, it is time we started talking about the responsibility of corporations to the country and what their obligations are to increase productivity. We cannot keep blaming workers and the tax structure. We need to ask corporations to what extent they are investing in Canada and to what extent they are taking the profits earned and produced as a result of the work of Canadians and putting those profits back into the economy to ensure Canadians have new economic opportunities and educational training opportunities that allow people to contribute to the best of their abilities and to use their talents in this country.
I find it rather strange that we are again dealing with a bill that deals with part of the problem but in the course of the debate we find that Liberals are less than enamoured with the idea of finding ways to ensure that corporations pay their fair share. We expect ordinary Canadians to pay their fair share and not to evade taxes so why would we not expect corporations to do their part in investing in Canadian industries, in Canadian economic opportunities and in community economic development and all that that implies?
I, frankly, get a little tired of hearing time and again from Conservatives and Liberals in the House that we have to lower our tax burden on corporations so we can compete with Americans and therefore create this happy scenario where everything will be fine. What they forget is that the United States is trillions of dollars in debt today, which is not necessarily an example for Canada. A country that does not provide any semblance of support for its citizens in the way of access to health care, education and social services, is surely not able to claim it is competing on a level playing field with Canada.
(1240)
Canada should not be considering that in order to be competitive all it has to do is lower the corporate tax rate without taking into account the great contribution that all taxpayers in this country make through the taxation system to ensure we have a national health care system and some semblance of a post-secondary education system, even though it is falling into greater and greater disrepute as a result of government cutbacks and neglect. Canada is a country that at least recognizes as part of its identity the values of cooperation and community, of compassion and caring, of sharing the wealth, of ensuring that everyone has an opportunity. We distinguish ourselves from the American model of laissez-faire market approaches, a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest philosophy of life and any notion of civil society.
In that context we have to look at Bill S-17. It is always amazing just how little the government brings forward in terms of cracking down on tax havens and programs that allow for tax evasion. I do not think it is good enough for the parliamentary secretary to suggest that it is quite normal and that everybody looks for ways to avoid paying taxes. He says we all do it and therefore there is nothing wrong with having policies in place that do not enforce treaties between Canada and countries like the Barbados and the Cayman Islands.
Most Canadians would be appalled at that kind of thinking and rationalization of a very untenable and despicable process. Canadians are expected to pay their taxes. When they avoid or evade their taxes, they are hounded and pestered until they pay. They are penalized accordingly. Were it only possible for the government to apply the same principle to large banks and corporations.
It is important for us to recognize in the context of this debate that it is organizations like Oxfam that have called on the world's richest countries to make a genuine commitment to global poverty reduction. It is important to reference the millennium development goals under which we are doing an abysmal job. The report calls for powerful nations to invest in a strong and effective public sector in the developing world and suppress weak regulations and tax havens.
I repeat that the report addressing the millennium development goals calls for governments to address weak regulations and tax havens. It is noted that this is an essential element of the fight against corruption in developing countries. There is an inherent obligation on our part to do what we can here in Parliament to address the continued presence of tax havens and provisions that allow for tax evasion in terms of relations between Canada and other countries.
This whole issue was really brought home this week by an editorial in the Montreal Gazette on Sunday. It reiterated some of the concerns that members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party had raised in the House. It had a way of raising the profile of this very serious issue. I want to quote very briefly from the editorial, which begins by saying:
|
Even as Canada's five largest banks announced record profits last month, they withheld from the Canadian treasury billions of dollars in taxes. Many big corporations in other industries were able to do the same. The corporations do this through the perfectly legal manoeuvre of funneling some profits through off-shore branches, conveniently located in tax havens such as Barbados, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and the Channel Islands. |
The article goes on to suggest:
|
Canada's big banks have a total of 73 branches in such places, jurisdictions where the tax rates are much lower than in Canada. Under tax treaties, profits declared there are taxed there, and what's left can be repatriated to Canada with no tax liability here. |
We have a very major issue to address in the context of Bill S-17. We have to get an understanding from the government as to how it intends to clear up this reprehensible state of affairs that continues to exist today. If we are talking about trying to find ways to build this country, to create jobs and opportunities, then surely we have to start by looking to ensure that profits generated in this country are invested back in this country and are not allowed to be shipped offshore for tax relief.
(1245)
I fail to see any rationale in the argument presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on that matter. When a profitable corporation takes money that is earned here on the backs of workers, as a result of efforts and creative energies by Canadians, and invests it offshore because of the tax benefit, I do not see how we benefit at all in this country.
We had the issue recently of operation loophole. A large family, identified in the press as the Bronfman family, invested $2 billion offshore. A small group based in Winnipeg, Manitoba called Choices, a social justice coalition, took it upon itself under the name of an individual, George Harris, to take on the Government of Canada over this absolutely reprehensible policy that allowed a wealthy family in this country to move $2 billion offshore and not pay a penny in taxes. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. Although George Harris did not win his case, it was clearly indicated that there had to be changes in policy and that the government had a responsibility to clarify this issue.
Have we had any clarity? Has there been a clarification? Has there been a change in policy to prevent the movement offshore of money, profits earned in this country as a result of workers' input, for tax evasion purposes and tax avoidance purposes? Have we learned anything from the furor and the uproar around the Prime Minister's own company, Canada Steamship Lines? Have we learned anything about the possibilities for conflict of interest when that kind of situation has arisen? Have we learned anything about what messages we send to Canadians when we have such a double standard?
The lesson for us today in the context of Bill S-17 is to find ways to crack down on such tax evasion and tax avoidance.
Bank profits continue to skyrocket. We have seen that in the news. Net profits for the six major Canadian banks reached $13.3 billion this year. According to La Presse, that is up 20.5% since 2003. Yet despite these massive profits, billions of dollars are withheld from the Canadian treasury each year. This is accomplished by the funneling of money through branches in tax havens such as Barbados and the Cayman Islands.
On top of the big banks' earning huge profits and moving money offshore, they are taking away services from Canadians. The double whammy occurs. Canadians are denied the benefit of profits reinvested in this country and at the same time the big banks have the audacity to destroy communities by eliminating all bank branches, by denying ordinary people, working families, access to financial services in their own communities.
We have a lot of work to do with respect to big banks and big corporations. Let us look at the facts. Last year the six big banks paid about $9.5 billion in Canadian taxes. This sum accounts for 89% of total taxes paid by the banks. The rest was paid in other regions, most notably in tax havens.
I will conclude by referencing the work that was mentioned in the Montreal Gazette and raised by my colleagues in the Bloc, about a month ago vis-à-vis a study released by Université du Québec Professor Léo-Paul Lauzon. He castigated the big banks for the exploitation of tax havens. According to Lauzon, as reported in an article, the tax bill for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce would have been roughly $844 million but it dropped to $239 million, largely due to the bank's use of tax haven branches.
(1250)
There is evidence around us. There is scientific fact. There is empirical evidence pointing to the problems with respect to tax havens and tax avoidance.
This is the time for Canadians to deal with it. This is the time for Parliament to address it. It is not sufficient to rest with Bill S-17, but to deal with the whole gamut of opportunities that corporations and banks use to take advantage of tax havens and tax avoidance.
(1255)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Proulx): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Proulx): I declare the motion carried.
Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
[English]
Food and Drugs Act
Hon. Joseph Volpe (for the Minister of Health) moved that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-28 which proposes two amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. These proposed amendments would provide the Minister of Health with the authority to allow Canadians faster access to a wider variety of safe and nutritional food products. Before I speak about the bill, I will provide some context to the reason the bill is being proposed.
The first proposed amendment responds to the concerns of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations on the legal status of regulations that currently permit the issuance of notices of interim marketing authorizations under the food and drugs regulations.
These notices allow the earlier availability of safe foods in the Canadian marketplace while the formal process is undertaken to amend the regulations. That is quite important to a lot of producers, to a lot of consumers and to industry so that we can get these products on the shelves as quickly as possible without undue duress but in a safe manner. I will get to that later.
The amendments introducing this concept into the food and drugs regulations came into effect in July 1997 after thorough consultation and analysis in accordance with the regulations of the federal regulatory process. Members will notice from the dates that we are talking about something we have been exercising since 1997. It does not change the effect of the way we manage these things. It just brings it into the proper regulations according to the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
These provisions allow the director, defined as the assistant deputy minister of the health products and food branch of Health Canada, to issue a notice of interim marketing authorization to exempt certain foods from the application, in whole or in part, of the regulations after a thorough safety assessment has concluded that no harm will be caused to consumers or users. By doing so, the director can allow the sale of these foods by all manufacturers and producers while the regulations are amended. We do not have to go through this step for every manufacturer and every producer. Once this has been done, these products can go into the marketplace.
(1300)
[Translation]
In fact, this is the final stage of the federal regulatory process and of the review conducted by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations made by the governor in council, under the Statutory Instruments Act.
The standing committee examined the provisions on the notices of interim marketing authorizations and expressed concern that the power to exempt some foods from the requirements of the Food and Drug Regulations would give to the director administrative discretion that exceeds the legislative authority granted by Parliament to the governor in council.
Essentially, the standing committee maintains that the regulations authorizing the issuance of notices of interim marketing authorizations go beyond the scope of the Food and Drugs Act.
Since the coming into effect of these regulations, Health Canada has issued 82 such notices without any concerns being raised by consumers or the industry. Consumers have had quicker access to new and safe food products. For example, foods to which vitamins or mineral nutrients were added to increase their nutritional value were offered more quickly on the market.
It is important to understand that the committee's concerns are not related to food safety. Rather, they are technical having to do with the powers of health bureaucrats or personnel, under the act and regulations. This is what we want to correct. They are not making any comments, since this is not their role.
As to whether the system works, we have already issued 82 notices of authorizations without encountering any problems. We have been doing this for a while, following a public discussion process.
Moreover, the notices of interim marketing authorizations allowed for the quicker sale of foods from cultures that were treated with agricultural chemicals, including safe and effective pest control products.
[English]
In order to maintain the current mechanism that offers benefits to consumers and industry by allowing the consumer timely access to safe food products, the government has brought forward Bill C-28.
The first proposed amendment would provide the Minister of Health with the authority to exempt the food from the application, in whole or in part, of the Food and Drugs Act and the applicable requirements of the food and drug regulations.
The minister would do this by issuing an interim marketing authorization, which would allow the immediate sale of some food products for which scientific assessment has already established that these products would not pose a hazard to the health of Canadian consumers or users.
The sale of these food products would be allowed while the full regulatory process was undertaken to amend the regulations. It has to be clearly understood that all the questions of safety have already been taken care of and all the testing has been done; then we go through longer term regulatory process and the mechanics, which could take some time.
Just to stress this latter point, I repeat that the issuance of an interim marketing authorization would not affect or circumvent the conduct of a thorough safety assessment prior to the availability of these food products on the market.
These authorizations could only be issued when the scientific evaluation concludes that no harm to consumers would result from the consumption of the food, and Health Canada has made the decision to propose a regulatory amendment for a number of reasons: first, the extension of use of a food additive already permitted to be added in other foods into a new food or the change of a permitted level of use of a particular additive; second, maximum residue limits of an agricultural chemical or veterinary drug in a food where the food and drug regulations already permit these substances in other foods, or the increase in the permitted maximum residue limits; or again, the addition of vitamins, mineral nutrients and/or amino acids at different levels than those listed in the regulations, or to new foods.
This limited scope of application of the interim marketing authorization mechanism in the bill is exactly the same as in the current regulatory mechanism that was reviewed by the standing committee. The only difference is that it clearly specifies the authority in the Food and Drugs Act instead of the regulations.
Again, it is nothing new. It is giving stability to the industry and making sure that Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is comfortable and confident that what we are doing is within the regulatory powers of the department.
(1305)
[Translation]
The second part of Bill C-28 deals with pest control products and their regulation pursuant to the provisions of the new Pest Control Products Act and the Food and Drug Regulations.
The new Pest Control Products Act, which was given royal assent in December of 2002, empowers the minister to specify maximum residue limits for the product or for its components or derivatives in food.
When specifying maximum residue limits, the minister shall evaluate the health risks of the product or its components or derivatives and determine if they are acceptable. To that end, he must determine that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health will result from use of a food item containing a residue level of a specific pest control product no greater that the maximum limit.
However, under the adulterated food provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, a food is adulterated if it contains a residue level of a pest control product greater than the levels stipulated in the regulations.
Therefore, any food with a residue level of a pest control product not greater that the maximum limit set by the minister, under the Pest Control Product Act, cannot be sold until the maximum residue limit is officially set in the Food and Drugs Regulations. The regulatory change process can easily take up to two years.
[English]
The proposed amendment to the Food and Drugs Act to recognize maximum residue limits specified under the new Pest Control Products Act, for Food and Drugs Act purposes, would result in administrative efficiencies and would also benefit the agricultural industry by allowing faster access to improved pest control products for use on food crops.
The proposed amendments to the Food and Drug Act support the Speech from the Throne objective of providing a “predictable regulatory system that accomplishes public objectives efficiently while eliminating unintended impacts”.
They are also in line with the ongoing intent of the Government of Canada's smart regulation initiative and the recommendations from the external advisory committee on smart regulation. These aim in part to provide access to safe products in a more timely fashion and remove possible restrictions on international trade.
Finally, the proposed amendments will support ongoing work under the North American Free Trade Agreement technical working group on pesticides, through which Health Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have accelerated bilateral harmonization in the registration of pest control products in order to provide faster and simultaneous access to a wide range of newer, safer pest management tools in both countries.
(1310)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief, which is unusual for me, although I do not exclude the possibility of expanding somewhat, if I feel any enthusiasm in this House.
Bill C-28 is a rather technical bill, as the hon. parliamentary secretary very eloquently reminded us. The purpose of Bill C-28 is to provide the Minister of Health with the authority to issue interim marketing authorizations. This is a bill reflecting the full extent of the will shown by the government to review the regulations.
As I said, the purpose is to enable the Minister of Health to issue interim marketing authorizations for foods that contain certain substances at specified levels, which are not hazardous to health, and therefore exempt from certain regulatory requirements for foods that have not yet been commercially approved.
We are not opposed to the principle of this bill. But I will be curious to see how it will be received in committee. In fact, I have just come from the Standing Committee on Health, where we approved a somewhat more controversial bill, on which I was pleased to work in a great spirit of consensus, a bill dealing with the whole issue of fire-safe cigarettes put forward by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
This study was undertaken in the previous Parliament. It is something to realize that, in committee, we have approved regulations drawing from the work of that precedent setting city of New York. In my opinion, it has to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world. l do not know how many hon. members have visited New York City during the Christmas period. Might I add that the people of New York elected their first female senator to the U.S. Congress? That is not the only thing that makes New York City an interesting place.
So, in principle, we support Bill C-28, which seeks to amend the Food and Drug Act. We will see just how far the minister wants to go in issuing interim authorizations. We understand that a number of criteria will have to be met. At first reading, however, we were not convinced that the minister was the best person to issue these interim authorizations. We will see what the Department of Health and the experts have to say in committee. This is a fairly technical bill, but we will do our work in committee as usual.
Personally, if I may say so on our last sitting day, I would have liked there to have been more work this session on the important issue of drug costs. This is an important debate that can create a welcome division of opinions. It is not always about agreeing on everything, since the right to dissent exists.
If I were asked to identify a few measures that this House could agreeably consider, I would spontaneously suggest four. First, it is not really acceptable, as the hon. member for Saint-Lambert knows, for the retail prices of generic drugs to be 30% higher in Canada than in the United States.
The United States is not, we agree, a society that opposes free enterprise. When I think that President Bush, a Republican, who is not a model for anyone in this House, is one of the most right-wing men I have never met, since I was denied access the day he came to the Hill. But it was not the right time to talk.
In my opinion, we must remember that the United States of America limited the scope of the Notice of Compliance, which was adopted in 1984 by the Conservatives, who wanted to establish various provisions to prevent counterfeiting. This was received favourably by some.
I remember, for example, that a man named Bernard Landry tabled a brief before the MacDonald Commission saying that it was important to have a national bio-pharmaceutical R and D industry.
(1315)
We understood that the conditions were not in place for this industry to emerge when, from 1923 to 1988, anyone wanting to copy a drug—the parliamentary secretary knows this because he is very much on top of this question—could just pay a fee to the innovator. So a generic manufacturer wanting to copy a pharmaceutical product of an innovative manufacturer needed only to pay a royalty to the originator in order to do so.
At that point, there was not a lot of either legislative or regulatory control, but I can assure you that when the regulation was adopted, inspired by the U.S. legislation, the desire was to ensure that counterfeiting of drugs would be impossible.
There was some very real pressure brought to bear, both on the Government of Canada and on the governments of certain provinces, to adopt regulations similar to those in effect in the U.S. The objective of the link regulations was to avoid counterfeiting. While I do not want to stir up any unpleasant memories for anyone here, I would point out that the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney passed a link regulation in 1989.
What was this link regulation that was adopted under the patent legislation? The regulation provided that Health Canada could be blocked in the process of issuing a compliance notice if the same company filed a notification citing reasons to believe that a patent was about to be infringed.
Just to amuse my colleagues, I will take Viagra as my example. Viagra could have eight patents out on it, one for colour, another for the key ingredient, one for the secondary ingredient. So let us assume there is a total of eight patents. The generic company therefore has to go down the whole list of patents and prove that it is not going to infringe upon any of the patents for which a compliance notice has been issued
At the slightest hint of counterfeiting, the company that holds the first patent, generally an innovative company, can gain an injunction for 24 months. We know that, from the legal point of view, an injunction is a pretty potent thing—no bad pun intended there—a pretty serious thing, because the process will be held up for 24 months.
Hon. members need to know that this injunction is issued prima facie, and is a very drastic measure. The slightest allegation can block the process for 24 months.
If it were up to me to propose four measures, let us say, I think that this House should look at a better balance on the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has the same powers as a superior court. It limits the prices set by manufacturers for all patented medicines to ensure they are not excessive. In Canada there is control over medicines, but not a limit on the retail price. That is not what we are talking about. This is control linked to the cost of medicines from the moment the manufacturer puts them on the market until the time the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has a look at them.
Thus, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Act could be amended to ensure that the generic manufacturers are also subject to it.
(1320)
Third, in addition to asking questions about the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, and hoping for changes in the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, I think we all know that Canada is participating in an international conference on data harmonization.
Of course, we can easily imagine how thrilling a quest for learning this must be. Canada is therefore an observer at an international conference where Japan and the European Union are represented. Should we not be looking at mechanisms for making drug approvals easier?
Should we not be asking questions, as parliamentarians, about the way we want the companies to present their clinical data? Let us not forget that there are usually three phases in getting a notice of compliance. In each phase, clinical data must be presented. Naturally, this can cost thousands of dollars.
In short, with respect to the cost of medicines, we must look at the issue of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the role of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, and the way this can be done as quickly as possible. It is in the public interest, so that Canadians and Quebeckers can have access to medicines and know they are safe. It is a matter of health and public safety to make certain that the medicines for which a notice of compliance is issued will not be subject to a recall.
Unfortunately, over the past few weeks there have been three examples of drug recalls. That is not good. There needs to be a good balance between quick and careful registration and there also needs to be mechanisms that give reasonable and solid guarantees on the safety of the drugs.
I know that in the previous budget the government had announced an extra few million dollars to help Health Canada perfect its analysis techniques. When a clinical monograph is submitted it can represent a stack of books from this wall to that wall. I am talking about thousands of pages of information that has to be looked at by examiners, who are often doctors, people who have a doctorate who must fully understand—research drugs are first tested on animals and then humans—the entire framework of the clinical trials.
If the parliamentary secretary does not mind, I will digress a little and talk about something that is at the heart of Bill C-28. The issue of clinical trials in Canada is a bit slack. We looked at this in the parliamentary committee. There are no real regulatory agencies that monitor clinical trials. Health Canada does this a little, somewhat horizontally. This issue of clinical trials is an extremely important one. It poses ethical questions as well as medical questions.
In the parliamentary committee, we presented 15 or so recommendations to the Minister of Health so that Canada could become competitive in terms of the conduct of clinical trials and also so that these trials could be publicly funded. It is unsettling to see that most clinical trials in Canada are conducted at the instigation of the private sector. Very little publicly funded research has been done on clinical trials. One has to wonder: is it good, in a society like Canada's, for the pharmaceutical industry to dictate, in a way, the clinical information program? I am not so sure. I think a solid research infrastructure needs to be implemented.
(1325)
I want to digress again. We have, of course, the health research institutes. We do have to recognize that their budgets are now over half a billion dollars.
I have very fond memories of the time I spent as R and D critic for my party. The following will recall those fond memories for the House.
The former premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, is a brilliant lawyer and a first-rate litigator. He was a remarkable premier, a strong statesman, who served Quebec very well. I am being, of course, very objective here. Let me remind my hon. colleagues of the brilliant campaign we led in 1993 under Mr. Bouchard, who was the leader of the Bloc Québécois at the time, which turned us into the official opposition.
In a huge fit of generosity, rarely seen in public life, Mr. Bouchard entrusted me with the R and D portfolio. That kind of surprised me. As people close to me know, I am a noble-hearted man, who has a very tough time operating a VCR. So, I was not too familiar with research and development. But I certainly tacked it. I met with people and read a lot of reports.
At the time, there was no department dedicated to research and development. I was very surprised then to read a report from the OECD, which, in a way, is the rich countries club. During the 1990s, the OECD was saying that Canada was next to last in research and development. This is serious. A continental country such as Canada, which had a relatively high GNP, was focussing less on research and development than other nations that had much fewer resources.
At the time, the industry was bitterly complaining about this situation. Some leadership should be assumed through public funds for research and development. We should not think that this is merely the responsibility of the private sector.
I will conclude this digression by saying that we have witnessed the creation of 13 Canadian institutes of health research, which basically replaced the medical research council of Canada.
The council was well known to Quebec researchers. During at least one generation, particularly when Mr. Bureau provided leadership with the health research funds for our province, on average, Quebec researchers were presenting 33% of the applications for funds to the medical research council of Canada. Even though we accounted for only 24% of the country's population, our ratio of researchers was much higher. Consequently, we were hoping to get corresponding funds.
When we examined the research by the Canadian institutes of health, we found out that they were virtual. Consequently, we were funding researchers and infrastructures, but these were not physical locations. We wanted networking for each of the research centres that existed at the time. We had an institute of health research for neurology, another one for cancer, and yet another one for mental health.
Concerning mental health, I want to digress for a moment. In the next years, one Canadian in five will have various degrees of mental health problems. Our relationship with mental health will thus face a major challenge in the next years. In a society where there is a lot of stress, health determinants vary.
It is interesting to ask ourselves why a person may go through life with a healthy attitude, a good mental balance, even a certain joy of living. We realize more and more that it is not medication that contributes to this. Tobacco use, among other things, has some effect on this.
In conclusion, we will study Bill C-28 in committee. It is a technical bill, but we realize that it has a lot of substance. We will be happy to hear representations from officials. We have some concerns over the role that the minister might want to take upon himself in respect of voluntary notices of compliance. We will be vigilant, but we view favourably a bill that I have examined thoroughly.
(1330)
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly where to start in putting my question. The hon. member and Bloc Québécois critic for health started off by saying that he would be brief. By that he meant that he would touch only briefly on the matter at hand and spend all his speaking time on several issues, each more interesting and more important than the other.
He raised all at once clinical trials, horizontal application and Viagra. Bearing in mind the time of day when our proceedings are broadcast on television across the country, perhaps we should be careful with that.
Regarding Bill C-28, I am pleased to see that we can count on cooperation and discussion at committee. The hon. member and all the other hon. members will recognize that the intent is to institutionalize what is already in place, what we have already been doing for the past five or six years, and that we are responding to the request by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We must therefore make sure that the regulations we apply will not be successfully challenged in court.
I would like to come back briefly to tobacco use. I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who raised the issue. We considered it today at committee and heard testimonies. All members of the committee unanimously approved a report.
It is indeed important to have this discussion today because, this evening, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso will be introducing a bill concerning a deduction for volunteer emergency service workers and the contribution they make to Canada when it comes to curbing among Canadians the risk of fire associated with tobacco use. That is very important.
I would also like to congratulate the hon. member, as well as the hon. members of all stripes who sit on the committee. We have done good work on the quarantine issue. We have moved the issue forward and demonstrated that a minority government can work, take action and count on the cooperation of everyone. These were my comments.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his cooperation with respect to Bill C-28.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed, as I did, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health started with Viagra and finished with thanks. However, I would also be remiss if I did not mention the very good work that he has done in committee.
As a matter of fact, this is developing our taste for a minority government. Indeed, if all committees and parliaments had worked the way we are working now and had considered everyone's opinion, it would have been interesting.
Indeed, what is interesting about the situation of a minority government is that the government has to work more cooperatively with all political parties. What is interesting in the Standing Committee on Health is that all opposition parties, like the government, have had their amendments agreed on and, of course, these were highly relevant amendments.
Concerning smoking, of course I share the minister's elegantly euphoric enthusiasm about the adoption of regulations on fire-safe cigarettes.
I hope that we will be able to rely on the minister and on another matter which, although not directly related to health, is not totally unrelated, that is the brilliant suggestion by the member for Charlesbourg—Hate-Saint-Charles to change the gay marriage legislation to also allow for divorce. I believe there is a link here with health. The health determinant must encourage us to make links. All this is encouraging us to prepare for the agenda of 2005, which will be a fertile year.
Once again, the key word in this parliament must be government: cooperation with the opposition. In a minority government, the government gains in stature from its cooperation with the opposition. We are in a period of our collective history where the main characteristic of the opposition is its eminently reasonable, serious, forward-looking, perceptive, dogged nature and, of course, its relevant judgment and amendments.
(1335)
Hon. Robert Thibault: Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, the hon. member for Hochelaga is saying that the ideal thing would be to have a Liberal majority government that acts like a minority government.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, of course I understand how the parliamentary secretary feels about his political party. We cannot hold that against him. However, the ideal solution, the one that would better serve the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians alike, would be based on cooperation where, in committee, the amendments brought forward by the opposition would be agreed upon in order to enhance bills that would hopefully serve the public interest.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta and the official opposition of Canada to participate in the debate on Bill C-28, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
This enactment would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide the Minister of Health with the authority to issue interim marketing authorization for foods that contain substances at specified levels, and to exempt those foods from the applicable requirement of the act and its regulation relating to their sale.
The proposed amendments are in response to concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding an administrative process put in place by Health Canada under the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act to allow Canadians faster access to food products under specific circumstances. All members of the House want our food supply to be safe, efficient and effective.
The bill proposes to amend the Food and Drugs Act to achieve two purposes. First, to provide the Minister of Health with the authority to issue an interim marketing authorization for the early sale of safe food and safe food products that contain certain substances; and second, exempt any food that contains an agricultural chemical, at or below the maximum residue limit specified by the minister under the new Pest Control Products Act, from the prohibition in the Food and Drugs Act of the sale of foods containing these residues because the sale of these foods would not pose harm to consumers. We are talking about safety.
The bill would give the minister authority to issue interim marketing authorization for food products wishing to enter the market earlier or that have previously entered the market and have added or modified contents since initially approved by Health Canada.
Currently, the deputy minister of health responsible for health products has the authority to issue interim marketing authorization, IMA. The minister is arguing that the authority to issue the IMA is a power of Parliament granted by the Crown and therefore the responsibility for the IMA should rest with the minister.
The bill would also allow for food products which contain pesticides, veterinary pharmaceuticals or added vitamins, minerals or amino acids at or below the maximum residue limit to be exempt from the FDA regulations while in the approval process.
Briefing material provided by Health Canada argues that Canadian companies are currently at a great disadvantage because of the lengthy approval time for new or modified food products. Canadian companies are not on a level playing field with their trading partners, particularly in the American market. This is because the U.S. government allows food products in the approval stage to be marketed, given that they are not harmful and not restricted by any other law or legislation.
The amendment that we are debating would put Canada on a par with the United States and give our food producers a level playing field when it comes to new products entering the market.
We would not be here today were it not for the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Bill C-28 is a direct consequence of concerns first raised by that committee in April 1999. At that time, over five years ago, the committee identified the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act permitting interim marketing authorization as illegal. In other words, it was not supported by legislation.
Much of the law that affects Canadians is not found in the statutes of Canada, but in the thousands of regulations made pursuant to powers granted by acts of Parliament. Each year the federal government introduces about 1,200 new regulations. Since 1975 the federal government introduced over 28,000 regulations. That is 122,000 pages of regulations. About 20% of the laws in the country stem from legislation debated and passed in this legislature. The remaining 80% of the laws that we see are made up of regulations; just 20% is what we passionately debate in the House.
After a debate, we vote yea or nay, depending on the merit of the proposed law. The media and the general public focus on the 20% component. However, the 80%, which is coming through the back door by way of regulations, is not debated nor are other parliamentary democracy principles applied to those regulations.
(1340)
Regulations on the other hand, receive virtually no debate in the House or even the other place, no public policy input, no studies or media scrutiny. This is an affront to democracy. Under parliamentary reform, this is the one the main issues at which we must look.
My private member's Bill C-205 passed in the House. I thank all members for their support. What will the bill do? We all know the government rules, but does not govern through the complete parliamentary democracy and practice. Some 80% of the regulations, which comprise the law, are made under the authority of Parliament. Various agencies, bodies or quasi-government organizations are delegated the authority to make regulations. However, when they make regulations, Parliament does not have the authority to scrutinize or review those regulations.
Therefore, a big chunk of our laws have been completely ignored. There is a big black hole in accountability and democracy which has been ignored for so long until Bill C-205 passed. With the passing of the bill, Parliament now has the authority to review regulations of those agencies through the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations. They will now be scrutinized and if need be, disallowed.
My bill restored some of that democracy. It was a huge step in parliamentary reform. We talk a lot about reform, but little action is taken.
The Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations does the only scrutiny. Very limited scrutiny of regulations is done in Parliament. Our new regulations are permanently referred to the committee pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act. Members of Parliament and Senators are on the committee. Legal counsel and staff work diligently, scouring through thousands of papers on dry, technical, legal subject matter as part of their thankless task of reviewing regulations.
This committee is generally misunderstood and ignored. This committee is considered to be not a very high profile committee, despite the hard work it does. In fact, talking about parliamentary democracy, this committee should be considered a very important one. It is an essential watchdog, protecting democracy, controlling bureaucracy and holding the government to account.
The standing joint committee does not judge regulations on the basis of policy measures, general merit, or necessity. Its study of regulations is instead limited to the questions of validity and legality. Members follow uniform and clearly defined criteria in their examinations. Compared to most committees, this committee is non-partisan and we build consensus in the committee.
(1345)
The committee judges whether or not an statutory instrument: is not authorized by the enbabling legislation or is not in compliance with the conditions set forth in the legislation; does not conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights; purports to have retroactive effect without express authority being provided by the enabling legislation; imposes a charge on public revenues, imposes a fine or imprisonment without express authority; excludes the jurisdiction of courts; has not complied with the Statutory Instruments Act with respect to transmission, registration or publication; appears to infringe on the rule of law, trespasses unduly on rights and liberties, make rights and liberties unduly dependent on legislative discretion, makes some unusual or unexpected use of powers conferred by the enabling legislation; amounts to the exercise of power that should properly be the subject of parliamentary enactment; and is defective in its drafting, including the translation.
These criteria deal with matters of legality and procedural aspects of regulation, not the merits of the regulations or policy.
The committee works meticulously, and with the complex nature of its undertaking, work proceeds at a slow pace. The long delays in dealing with particular items are largely related to the large number of regulations which the committee has to review relative to the number of meetings it can hold each year. All this considered, the committee, with the able assistance of its long-time legal counsel, Mr. Francois Bernier, is remarkably productive. Consider that over the period from November 7, 1997 to December 6, 2001, the committee dealt with 1,133 pieces of subordinate legislation in the course of 45 meetings.
I am a seven term co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, representing all members of the House and I speak from personal experience. The work of the committee members can be extremely frustrating. We in effect hold ministers accountable for the legality of subordinate legislation, primarily regulations, sponsored by their departments.
However, this task is at times almost impossible. When the scrutiny of regulations committee finds a regulation that it deems in conflict with the legislation, our first step is to inform the respective department in writing. It should be a simple process. We identify a problem regulation, inform the department and then it fixes it. Instead, what we usually encounter is foot-dragging that can carry on for years or even decades.
The Food and Drugs Act regulations are an example of this foot-dragging. For five years, the department argued that there was nothing wrong with the regulations concerning the notice for interim marketing authorization. We are debating this today. Finally, after so many years, the department abruptly informed the committee last April that it was proceeding with the legislation before the House today. For over five years, the department has been using illegal regulations. Those are the regulations we are trying to correct today.
In a democracy that prides itself in the rule of law, this is unpardonable, but it is not the least bit unusual. Recently, my committee finally closed another file that had been opened for 27 years, more than a quarter of a century.
The committee's usual practice is to deal with a problem regulations informally by letter to the relevant officials. This allows the minister involved to amend the regulation with minimum fuss. The committee can also prepare and issue a disallowance report, but this is usually done only after the department has failed to address our previously identified concerns. Disallowance reports are very rare.
Let us consider the sequence of events surrounding the Food and Drugs Act regulations concerning interim marketing authorizations. I want to give this example so that the members in the House, the public in general, and our media scrutiny can also understand and comprehend the problems facing this committee.
(1350)
On April 7, 1999 counsel for the scrutiny of regulations committee wrote to the DIO and questioned the legality of provisions of food and drug regulations that provided for notices of interim marketing authorization. The objection was that these provisions provided for unauthorized exemptions and also involved an illegal sub-delegation of powers.
On November 25, 1999, 232 days later, the department responded that it considered the provisions to be a valid exercise of regulation-making powers conferred by the Food and Drugs Act.
On December 23, 1999, the committee counsel reviewed the arguments put forward by the department and sent a letter countering those arguments, asking for reconsideration.
On March 8, 2000, now 355 days, almost a year after the initial correspondence and over three months since the last letter, the department replied indicating that generally it was committed to the policy, but that it might review the regulatory provisions in question with a view to making a “clarifying amendment.”
Exactly seven months later, on September 28, 2000, the committee was forced to again write to the department to inform it that it wished a detailed response to its letter of December 23, 1999.
Nothing more was heard from the department until October 17, 2001, over one year since the last correspondence, when a comprehensive reply to the letter of December 23, 1999 was finally received by the committee.
On December 12, 2002, the file was re-submitted to the joint committee with a 13 page note on the October 17, 2001 response.
On March 3, 2003, myself, as co-chair of the standing joint committee, wrote to the Minister of Health to restate the committee's position and explain why the response from the department was not accepted.
Over a year later, on June 24, 2004, the committee was informed that:
|
It is the intention of the Department to bring forward legislation in the early Fall 2004 that will amend the Food and Drugs Act to allow the Minister of Health to issue NIMAs and provide for a limited power to exempt food products from the application of the Food and Drug Regulations and paragraph 4(d) of the Act. |
Finally, on November 29 Bill C-28 was introduced. There was a little over five years between the time the issue was first raised with the department and the introduction of remedial legislation. As I said earlier, when compared to other files that stretch on for decades, this issue was resolved rather quickly. However, five years is still five years. That is far too long for illegal regulations to remain in place.
Departments and their ministers take far too long to respond to concerns of the committee. There is no good reason for the department to go over a year without responding to a letter from the committee. It is an affront to the rule of law, it is an affront to Parliament and it is an affront to democracy. That is why we need Parliament to be reformed, including scrutiny of regulations issues.
(1355)
I support Bill C-28. The amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are years overdue. I give full credit to the members, the staff and the counsel of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations for identifying the drawbacks in the system, bringing that to the fore, and following and chasing it through until remedial action is taken by the department to correct this parliamentary affront that has been going on so long.
I will conclude by asking members of Parliament to look into the regulatory process so that the regulatory process in this country is fair, efficient and effective.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's comments on this. It is an issue that has been with us for decades, actually, this issue of legislation in fact being made through regulations rather than through Parliament. It really is the governor in council making laws.
In this case, as the member has laid out, the issue is more about expediting the timeframe between a decision being taken and getting a product approved for use. As I think the member pointed out, there have been over 80 interim authorization orders executed and there has been no adverse feedback from any of the stakeholders.
In that regard, is that the member's understanding? Is this a mechanism or the model whereby regulations are in fact further seconded down to a fast track? Is that not an area which the member would consider to be a further risk element to having legislation being done through regulations or interim authorizations?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, I think it is a serious concern for all members in the House when some regulations are contradicting the authority given by legislation. Second, safety and security are at risk in many issues when the departments are dragging their heels and not dealing with the issue.
In general, I think we have to work a lot in this place on regulatory reform. There are many regulations that overlap and duplicate. In various departments, some of the regulations completely contradict each other. They need to be taken care of, and as well, I think harmonization of regulations is a serious issue.
The government has been dragging its heels on the harmonization of regulations, even with our largest trading partner, and even in east-west trade that is taking place in our country from province to province. There is a lot of overlap and duplication. Harmonization is needed to correct those mistakes.
I will say that as a first step we could identify the regulations and put them in three categories: good, bad and ugly. We need to keep some good regulations, which ensure safety of food, protection of the environment and provide us with security, but we need to get rid of the ugly regulations, which should not be in place.
I think regulatory reform becomes an integral part of parliamentary reform, about which there has been a lot of talk but little action.
I take some credit for this for having my bill, Bill C-205, pass in the House. That is not a very common occurrence. It is very rare that a private member's bill becomes law. It brought various regulations by various quasi-government agencies and organizations under the umbrella of Parliament. It restored parliamentary democracy and accountability to a great extent. It did plug the regulatory accountability black hole that had existed for so long.
I believe that Parliament should take the direction of bringing about regulatory reform as an integral part of parliamentary reform so that such issues are dealt with more effectively and efficiently.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1400)
[English]
London Knights
Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute in the House today to the London Knights of the Ontario Hockey League. Their 0-0 tie with the Guelph Storm last Friday night set a new Canadian Hockey League record of 30 straight games undefeated. Sunday's overtime win against the Kitchener Rangers extended the unbeaten streak to 31 games.
This surpasses the 1978-79 record of 29 games without a loss, previously held by the Brandon Wheat Kings of the Western Hockey League.
This is a remarkable accomplishment for the Knights. I am proud to have been among the thousands of fans at the game to witness this historic event. I know that some other colleagues from the House were there also.
I wish to extend congratulations to all the team members, as well as the president and head coach, Dale Hunter, and vice-president and general manager, Mark Hunter, for leading such a well-rounded and disciplined hockey team.
I know that all members of the House, especially my London colleagues, will join me in congratulating the London Knights as the CHL record holder for the most consecutive wins. I say keep going, Knights, and well done.
* * *
Marriage
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has refused to call the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional. This spineless government appeal has backfired: the Liberals cannot claim the court made them end traditional marriage.
Marriage is a matter for Parliament, not judges.
It has nothing to do with the charter. This government could have endeavoured to defend the traditional definition of marriage by challenging lower court decisions, but it did not. Instead, the Liberals are attacking Canadian family values.
I firmly believe that Canada's laws and social programs should strive to support and uphold marriage and the family unit. The traditional definition of marriage must be preserved.
The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution. Altering it is a profound step that deserves vigorous, open debate. This is a matter for elected representatives to decide.
My party will have a free vote on any government legislation. I call upon the Prime Minister to allow all of his MPs, including members of--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour.
* * *
Riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Christmas season has already been great throughout Dartmouth and Cole Harbour.
In particular, the revived Dartmouth downtown has been the centre of much excitement. Last weekend, for instance, over 4,000 people crowded around Sullivan's Pond to see the inaugural lighting of the downtown trees. Last Sunday, Christmas Full of Caring, which raises money for the homeless, held its phenomenal 10th annual dinner.
As well, yesterday Dartmouth celebrated the life of Joseph Howe with the naming of a park in his honour, a fitting tribute to the father of responsible government in Canada.
Dartmouth--Cole Harbour is also the home of another famous person, Mike Clattenburg, the creator and producer of the Trailer Park Boys, a show that is also filmed in Cole Harbour. This past Sunday we saw the show's very touching Christmas special, an episode which I am sure has special meaning for us all.
On September 23, the Chronicle-Herald had a headline that read, “Downtown Dartmouth Comes Alive”. This is absolutely true. We will continue to work to ensure its continued success.
Finally, I wish all my constituents the very best of the holiday season.
* * *
[Translation]
Millennium Fund
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is telling us that the millennium fund was well managed. In that case, can it tell us why all requests for financing had to go through Alfonso Gagliano's office first? Why did the minister's office not keep any record whatsoever of correspondence? Why would his chief of staff clearly insist that his staff not keep any correspondence. Why was nothing ever sent to departmental staff? Finally, why did an audit report that cost $500,000 disappear?
There are numerous similarities with the management of the sponsorship program. The government, which promoted transparency, owes us some answers. I would remind the Minister of Public Works that even if the program no longer exists, clarification is needed. Where did the $150 million in the millennium fund go?
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Greater Toronto Airport Authority
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Greater Toronto Airport Authority for recent efforts to prevent illegal taxis from stealing business at Pearson International Airport.
For several years Transport Canada and the airport were seriously neglectful of their obligations to protect the taxi and limousine licences they sold to drivers at the airport.
Rogue taxi drivers, who are called scoopers, were routinely stealing fares and operating illegally, exposing travellers to fare gouging and risks to safety from unregulated drivers and cars.
The new enforcement initiative was supported by officials from the federal Department of Transport and also by officials from the Province of Ontario who are now also developing provincial laws and procedures to support this new initiative.
In addition to eradicating illegal taxi scoopers, the GTAA is reforming its taxi and limo permit system to allow more independent taxis and a new group of licensed limousines. I have been an advocate of these changes for 12 years now and I applaud the progress that has been made.
* * *
Canadian Entrepreneur of the Year
Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I rise to honour Edmonton's Bill Comrie, who was recently named the Canadian entrepreneur of the year.
Mr. Comrie is well known as the founder of The Brick, an Edmonton based furniture retailer. The Brick started as one store and is now the largest furniture retailer in Canada with more than 165 stores and over 5,000 employees.
Edmontonians also know Mr. Comrie as a tireless booster of our city, a dedicated philanthropist and a key supporter of the Stollery Children's Hospital and the Alberta Heart Institute.
Mr. Comrie also supports minor sports, especially hockey. Every year he hosts The Brick novice hockey tournament, which is the largest in the world for 9 year olds and 10 year olds.
We have come to realize that whatever Mr. Comrie does. he does well.
On my behalf and on behalf of the member for Edmonton—Leduc, I with to congratulate Bill Comrie and his family on his recent award and thank him for all the good work he does for Edmonton, for Alberta and for Canada.
* * *
Canadian Forces Reserves
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Thunder Bay resident Admiral Raymond Zuliani on his long and valued service to the Canadian Forces Reserves.
Admiral Zuliani was appointed Chief of Reserves and Cadets in 2000 and represents 27,000 reservists and 56,000 cadets. The reserves constitute 45% of Canada's military forces.
Among his achievements are the implementation of a pension plan for reservists and the protection of civilian jobs for reservists called to duty. He also assured education funds for reservists who attend post-secondary programs.
Admiral Zuliani joined the Canadian Forces cadets at the age of 12, moved to the reserves at the age of 16, and over the past 40 years has dedicated his life to the defence needs of our country while maintaining a full time career as an educator.
Admiral Zuliani will retire from the reserves in January. I invite my fellow parliamentarians to join me in thanking him for his exceptional service and wishing him a happy and healthy retirement.
* * *
[Translation]
John Humphrey Freedom Award
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Godeliève Mukasarasi, the recipient of the prestigious John Humphrey Freedom Award.
This African woman, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, has been working to promote the rights of women in her country for many years.
She has shown exceptional commitment in working with women who were victims of rape and sexual violence during the 1994 genocide.
She played a key role in breaking the silence and documenting crimes of sexual violence for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Thanks to her contribution, for the first time, on October 2, 1998, an international court convicted an individual of a crime of sexual violence perpetrated during a civil war and rape was recognized as an act of genocide and torture.
The Bloc Québécois salutes the exceptional courage of Godeliève Mukasarasi in her struggle to obtain justice and reparations for the women of her country.
* * *
[English]
Aysegul Candir
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton and across Canada are mourning the tragic death of Aysegul Candir, an ESL teacher at Bramalea Secondary School who was the victim of an alleged domestic violence shooting in the school parking lot on Friday, December 10.
I am deeply saddened by this tragic event and by the loss of a very special teacher. Candir had been teaching English as a second language at Bramalea since September 2002. According to Principal John Chasty, she was totally dedicated to her students and understood the challenges they faced as newcomers to Canada because she had first-hand experience.
I would like to offer my deepest condolences to Candir's family in Turkey. I thank everyone who has sent messages of sympathy in the wake of this tragic event. This tragic incident highlights the need to put an end to domestic violence.
* * *
(1410)
Kamloops Christmas Light Tour
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today, the last sitting day before the Christmas break, to pay tribute to a Kamloops tradition.
The Christmas Light Tour is the highlight of the season for many Kamloops seniors. Volunteers pick them up at various residences and drive them around the city in comfortable coaches to look at the spectacular lights. The Kamloops residents go above and beyond to decorate for the holiday season, knowing that the seniors will be driving by.
It is a truly magical evening for everyone involved. I look forward to being a part of it once again this year. It is often said, but it is well worth repeating, that volunteers are the backbone of this nation. I thank them for their time and efforts in organizing this event.
I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to wish you and all of my colleagues in the House a very merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.
* * *
Ukraine
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence 13 years ago. Today we are building on that history.
Canadian Friends of Ukraine, a Canadian NGO, is working to promote democracy and reform in Ukraine. I ask every member of the House to show their support for the Canadian Friends of Ukraine and the Ukrainian congress in assisting democratic striving for the people of Ukraine.
Members of the House have unanimously declared their solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the people of Ukraine, so that the December 26, 2004 repeat presidential elections take place in an environment free of media censorship, intimidation and foreign intervention.
The take note debate and the motion in the House supported by all parties have demonstrated our support for free, fair and transparent presidential elections in Ukraine to be held on December 26.
We wish the Ukrainian people all the best in their journey toward democratic reform.
Slava Ukraina.
* * *
Brabant Newspapers
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Brabant newspaper chain publishes many papers in Hamilton communities. Cost cutting measures and layoffs have allowed Brabant to reap record profits.
While investors are raking it in, Brabant and its masters at TorStar Corporation cancelled 600 kids' paper routes.
The 60 remaining press, insert and pre-production workers have gone on strike seeking pay equity and fair wages.
This same company has called for a shield law to protect its journalists from being forced to reveal their sources. That is right, it wants more respect for its workers.
But at the same time, Brabant is now using scab labour just before Christmas to undermine its employees' bargaining strength. Where is the respect in that?
I support a shield law, but I also support showing more respect for workers' rights to fair wages. Using scabs is an immoral attack on the collective bargaining process.
Get rid of the scabs, Brabant, and get back to the bargaining table.
* * *
Bethlehem Walk in Parksville
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Parksville on Vancouver Island is a city of some 10,000 people. This week a local Baptist church will attract more than 10,000 people to a four day special Christmas event.
There are shepherds and lots of real, fluffy sheep. There are donkeys and chickens and a stable scene with a real newborn baby.
Reproduced are the shops, smells and sounds of the historic, dimly lit streets of Bethlehem. More than 200 people are dressed in period costume as Roman soldiers, blacksmiths, candle makers and fish mongers. There is a period bakery producing Dead Sea rolls. There is Sotheby's auction house where people can bid on Goliath's sword or Moses' staff, which still turns into a serpent when it is thrown down on the floor.
Afterward there are cookies, hot chocolate and Christmas carols.
It is all in good fun and sets the stage to help the less fortunate. Last year the Bethlehem Walk raised more than $10,000, all given to the Society of Organized Services to help needy families.
It is the spirit of giving. It is the Christmas story. It is light coming into darkness. It is joy to the world, peace and goodwill.
Congratulations to Parksville Fellowship Baptist Church.
* * *
[Translation]
Textile and Clothing Industry
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, the Denim Swift company in Drummondville announced that it was laying off more than 600 employees.
Yesterday, six textile plants in the town of Huntingdon announced their imminent closure, and more than 800 workers found out, just days before Christmas, that they will be losing their jobs.
Rather than sitting idly, the federal government has an opportunity to ensure that import tariffs on clothing and textile products are maintained in Canada. It can also continue to remit customs duties paid by clothing companies and to maintain a quota on Chinese imports, under the WTO access protocol for China.
The government can also develop a program to help modernize the clothing and textile industries by stimulating research, development and creation. Finally, it could establish a program to help older workers who will not have a job to go back to.
There are many solutions available. The only thing that is lacking is a will to act on the part of the federal government.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC):
'Twas the night before the break, and all through the Nation,
The citizens had decided, the Liberals deserved no ovation.
The immigration requests were hung by her office with care,
In hopes that St. Judy soon would be there.
Her staffers were nestled all snug in their chairs,
While Romanian dancers showed off their wares.
And Martin in his confusion, and his MPs on the take,
The Liberals had settled down for a long winter's break.
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
It turns out, to the people, honesty does matter.
With one minister sinking, Paul must act in a flash,
But dithering is his forté, God forbid he be brash.
When Gagliano was to Chrétien, a serious bane,
He was shuffled out of cabinet to the land of the Dane.
Everyone is demanding Paul act with conviction,
For if he does not, integrity is just Liberal fiction.
A quick dismissal of the minister will stop opposition grilling,
But where to put Judy, as the Danish position no longer needs filling?
What country's ambassadorship can we to Ms. Sgro?
To you Paul, I say, “How about Trinidad and Tobago?”
* * *
Kids Come First Child Care Centre
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it brings me great pleasure to rise in the House today to bring news of a wonderful program in my vibrant riding of Thornhill.
The Kids Come First Child Care Centre in Vaughn was recently recognized for its excellence and innovation among non-profit agencies at the community level. It received one of the nine Donner Canadian Foundation Awards for Excellence in the Delivery of Social Services.
The centre was founded in 1991 and currently has over 300 registered students. The education centre was recognized for its amazing child care program.
In the past year Kids Come First has donated over 70,000 pounds of clothing and toys to many northern aboriginal communities within the province and across the country.
It is organizations like this one that look beyond themselves, thereby strengthening the Canadian identity. Bravo.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Child Care
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is the last day the House will sit before Christmas. My family and I wish to convey our best wishes for the season to the Prime Minister and his family, but before I do so, I have other business.
Canadian children can only hope that Santa Claus is better and more able and willing to fulfill his promises than is the Prime Minister. During the election he promised a universal national child care program for all Canadian children and later it became more precisely the creation of a limited number of spaces.
Whatever it is, could the Prime Minister tell us on what date he will be implementing his child care proposals?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reciprocate by wishing to the Leader of the Opposition and his family, and to all members of the opposition, to the leader of the Bloc, to members of the Bloc, to the leader of the NDP and to his party, and most certainly to all of the people on this side of the House, a very merry Christmas, a happy new year and best wishes for the holidays.
To respond to the hon. member's question, the negotiations are underway with the provinces, as the Leader of the Opposition might know. I can assure the hon. member that we will fulfill all of our obligations because it is a commitment that we feel is very important for the families of this country.
* * *
Infrastructure
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was worried when I did that, that I would give the Prime Minister the opportunity to talk about something other than his precise plans.
The Prime Minister also promised a national infrastructure program for cities. Gas tax revenues, he said, would be shared with the cities without delay or equivocation. Yet cities, provinces, municipalities, whatever, have not seen a cent in gas taxes.
Could the Prime Minister tell us on this one, on what date he plans to implement his policy?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank the hon. member for giving me the chance to really speak about the government's program. The fact is that the minister involved has made substantial progress in discussing it with the cities, municipalities and communities. We have been discussing it with the provinces. Those discussions are ongoing and we are very much on schedule.
I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition giving me this opportunity to say just how we are changing the face of Canada for the better.
* * *
(1420)
Natural Resources
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think I heard at least one person who did not believe it.
Six months ago the Prime Minister promised 100% of the offshore to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The provinces of course are still waiting for him to keep his word, so once again, will the Prime Minister tell us what date he has in mind for actually signing a deal?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the negotiations are underway. What I am very pleased to say, and I say this on behalf of the Minister of Finance, is that the proposition that is being debated, that the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are looking for, is infinitely superior to the one that was put by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact the Leader of the Opposition was actually going to cut equalization in Nova Scotia. We on the other hand have increased equalization for all the recipient provinces.
* * *
National Defence
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the Prime Minister, I am reminded of my lawyer who told me that the less he has to say, the more he talks.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister had promised to increase the size of the Canadian armed forces by 5,000 personnel. Now, the vice chief of the defence staff is saying that it will take several years to achieve that objective.
By what date can our armed forces expect the promised recruitment process to be completed?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, as with all the other options put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, we are keeping our promises, and we will do so in accordance with the timeframes set during the election campaign. The same goes for national defence.
Indeed, it will take more money. That is why we intend to increase the funds allocated to the Department of National Defence.
As for his lawyer, I think he should get a new one.
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am listening very carefully but I am not hearing any dates in any of the replies.
The Prime Minister promised that in his era, scandal would be ancient history, but the immigration minister is up to her neck in enough scandals for the entire cabinet alone. Since I am in a rather charitable mood, I will not get into the latest today, but could the Prime Minister tell us with certainty that the immigration minister will still be in her post when the House returns?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to want specific dates. In terms of specific dates, in all of the examples that he has given, the fact is that we have remained very consistent and very faithful to our commitments. However, the hon. member has some difficulty understanding that.
I have complete confidence in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and in what she is doing in immigration in terms of opening up and in terms of settlement. She is doing exactly the job that she was called upon to do. She is changing the face of immigration.
* * *
[Translation]
Textile and Clothing Industry
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has known for 10 years that the import quotas on textiles would end on December 31 this year. The government has known for 10 years that thousands of jobs were in jeopardy. The government has known for 10 years what the solution is and yet more than 800 workers in Huntingdon stand to lose their jobs because of federal inaction.
Since the Prime Minister certainly cannot claim to be surprised at this news, can he explain why his government, which had all the tools necessary to soften the effects of the crisis, has not done anything to help textile workers?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the private sector decisions taken by businesses in Huntington have serious and regrettable consequences. Civic officials are seeking solutions. I understand they have arranged meetings to discuss the situation with the Government of Quebec and that they also intend to do so with the Government of Canada.
We all need to do what we appropriately can do to help within our respective spheres of jurisdiction to make sure that the very best economic result applies.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, international trade relations are a federal responsibility. Under WTO rules, there was a way to adopt solutions or suggest possible solutions. Proposals were made in the Standing Committee on Finance as long ago as last March. The matter was discussed during the election campaign, and it was raised last week as well. The response was that we were too impatient.
Right now, instead of spending time wishing each other Merry Christmas, could we give some thought to the 800 workers about to lose their jobs in Huntingdon? Could they stop talking nonsense and instead get a move on and show a bit of compassion, and could the Prime Minister for once stop humming and hawing and take—
(1425)
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the instigation of a great number of members in the Liberal caucus, the issues relating to the textile industry and the apparel industry have been under very active consideration, including those recommendations that flowed from the finance committee.
I have indicated on many occasions that we will offer a response before the end of this calendar year when the duty remissions that affect some companies will expire, and that commitment will be kept.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have been aware of the coming massive job losses in the textile and apparel industries for many months, and we called upon the government to make use of the trade agreement provisions to establish a transition period for this industry.
What explanation does the government have for not announcing that it plans to use transitional measures, when it could be done without any problem, and would have kept the jobs and made things easier for thousands of workers?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the job issues are indeed important, as are the transitional issues. It is obviously also important for Canada to keep its international trade commitments.
Members on this side of the House have been working to balance all of those factors so we can achieve maximum employment, maximum business investment and maximum trade benefits as well. I am confident that we will succeed in meeting those objectives.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on December 9, my colleague from Joliette asked the Minister of Finance about his government's inaction in the textile industry and the reply was “Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is jumping the gun”.
How can the Minister of Finance say that the Bloc Québécois is jumping the gun when yesterday 800 people learned that they were losing their jobs in Huntingdon? If we are jumping the gun, he is completely missing the boat.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issues involved in the textile and apparel industry are complex. They are interrelated and interconnected. It is important not just to scribble down answers on the back of an envelope but to give the issues careful consideration, to consult with those who need to be consulted, and to achieve a result that will work, not just one that will get headlines.
* * *
Health
Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
When the new Minister of Health was sworn in he said that he wanted to stop the creeping privatization of the health care system. The Prime Minister will know that sometime after we come back in February there will be a report to Parliament on the Canada Health Act. The problem with that report is that it never tells us how much money is being spent on private for profit delivery of health care.
I wonder if either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health could tell us whether that kind of information will be asked of and received from the provinces this time so we know just what kind of levels of spending on private for profit delivery we are talking about.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an unprecedented degree of accountability in the accord that we arrived at with the provinces in September of this year. We hope to collect all kinds of information based on that accord throughout the country and report that to the people of Canada.
I can say that we on this side of the House are absolutely of one mind when it comes to enforcing the Canada Health Act and doing so vigorously.
* * *
Maher Arar Inquiry
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is doing everything it can to ensure the public inquiry into the deportation and detention of Maher Arar is anything but public. Now it is blocking the release of a summary document on the inquiry's proceedings since it closed its doors to the public five months ago, a summary that government appointed commissioner Justice Dennis O'Connor declares “will not harm national security”.
When will the government quit stalling and allow the commissioner to release the Arar inquiry summary? What is this government trying to hide?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is the case with many of the responsibilities of the Attorney General, under the Canada Evidence Act, this decision is not made by the Attorney General himself, or me in this case, but is delegated to an official. Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act has been triggered and justice officials have consulted extensively within government to form a decision that will be conveyed to the commissioner as soon as possible.
* * *
(1430)
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today there are more details of a security probe into the office of the immigration minister involving a staffer who was quietly fired as a possible threat to the country.
The minister denied in the House having any knowledge of that investigation so the question is simple. If she did not know this staffer had been fingered as a security threat, why did she fire him?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions before, it is singularly inappropriate for us to comment on whether any investigation is ongoing.
However the other thing I would say and something the hon. member needs to remember is that anyone who works on a minister's staff must go through a security check and, before hiring, must be cleared.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, well yes, that is a problem, is it not? That staffer, who is now under investigation as a security threat, had access to top level files containing sensitive personal information about thousands of immigrants and their families. The minister has a clear duty to protect the privacy and safety of vulnerable newcomers to Canada.
Why did the minister hire a staff member and give him top level clearance to sensitive information without taking the trouble to make sure he was not a security risk?
Hon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me speak very calmly and very clearly. These allegations are absurd and unfounded and something like what one would see in the National Enquirer. The story is a complete fabrication, word for word.
This kind of sloppy reporting is clearly a disservice to the many journalists who actually write stories and do the research. No one on my staff is or has been under any kind of investigation.
What is the headline tomorrow? Is Santa going to be an elf?
Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we shudder at what the next headline will be tomorrow.
Last week we asked the immigration minister if there were any police investigations into her staff and she said, “no”. Today we learn that one of her former staffers is being investigated for ties to a terrorist organization.
Granting status to a Romanian stripper who worked on her election, taking campaign funds illegally and now we learn about this investigation.
If I could have just one wish for Christmas, it would be a straight answer from the immigration minister--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have too many hon. members who feel free to throw unsubstantiated allegations around in this place. I will again reiterate that anyone working for any minister in the government must go through a security and background check.
In relation to any operational matters involving the RCMP or any other investigative agency, it is simply inappropriate for anyone in the government or for those agencies themselves to confirm or deny any details in relation to operations--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): If the Liberals want to talk about inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, the minister misled the House when she denied there were any investigations into her office. Now we find out that it is not just a police investigation but a national security probe.
The minister is no longer just an international embarrassment, she is now a security threat, having a staff member with ties to the Tamil Tigers who has admitted to using 241 suicide bombers in the last 17 years of a campaign of terror.
I would like to know what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has planned for a New Year's resolution. Will she reduce the stress in her life and just resign?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we just heard from the hon. member are the most outrageous, unsubstantiated allegations and assertions.
I would encourage people like that to actually have the courage to go outside where they do not have parliamentary immunity and make those statements.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Textile and Clothing Industry
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the people of Huntingdon in my riding are calling for help. More than 800 jobs are disappearing from this town. Just before Christmas, that is a disaster.
What is the minister's plan for rescuing the textile industry and helping the communities who are suffering? I demand an answer now.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been working very hard on this file in consultation with industry, with employees and with members of Parliament, including, most particularly, members on the government side. We recognize the importance of this industry and we also recognize the seriousness of the situation, such as those in Huntingdon.
We have been seeking solutions that will not just maintain the status quo but will actually better position the industry for the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Alain Boire (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the mayor of Huntingdon is calling for government help for his residents. Among other measures, he is asking for speedy payment of EI benefits and retirement measures to help older workers.
Is the federal government able to respond positively—today—to the mayor's request for emergency assistance?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have met with the employers, the unions and other representatives in order to begin the process of ensuring that these employees get all the benefits they are entitled to as a result of this tragic event. My department is willing and ready to do anything necessary as quickly as possible.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday's closure of the textile mill in Huntingdon is a tragic illustration of the usefulness of an assistance program for older workers. The average age of the Huntingdon workers who have completely lost their jobs is over 50.
I ask the Minister of Human Resources if he will re-introduce an improved program for older worker adjustment—or POWA—for textile workers and those in Huntingdon in particular.
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I am available to look at all possible means of easing the transition for the employees who have lost their jobs, including the POWA.
Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ): Mr. Speaker, decisions must be made. A dissenting report by a Liberal member of the other chamber states that the government is on the wrong track in its employment insurance policies.
In her report on dissidence and distress, she demands serious improvements, because she thinks the reforms are insufficient and she blames the bureaucrats in the departments of finance, human resources and skills development, and Treasury Board.
Will the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development finally show some sensitivity to the plight of older workers and restore an improved form of the POWA as quickly as possible?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was being very sincere when I said I was available to examine the programs for older workers.
However, it seems the hon. member opposite is not as sincere as he would like to appear, since he is talking about a report that has nothing to do with the problem before us, that of textile industry employees.
Moreover, with the help of my staff, I have already begun setting up a program that may find solutions for the immediate problem.
* * *
[English]
Marriage
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday night the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform let slip the government's hidden agenda on freedom of religion. On CPAC the minister said that public officials who refuse to perform same sex marriages for reasons of conscience or religion should be disciplined and fired.
My question is for the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform. Will the minister admit he has let slip the government's hidden agenda to undermine full freedom of religion?
(1440)
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision is clear. The charter is clear. Freedom of religion is protected and people who are not religious officials are also protected with respect to their religious beliefs.
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is simply outrageous for members on that side to state that people should be fired or disciplined for their religious beliefs. This is a direct attack on Canadians' freedom of both conscience and religion.
Why is the government's position that individuals who do not agree with changing the definition of marriage should be excluded from public life?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what is disgraceful. It is for an hon. member to stand up in the House and make a statement like that, which is not true and, in fact, has no validity. That is what is wrong.
It is creating divisions in the country. It is a statement that goes contrary to the Charter of Rights and to what the court said. That is not the kind of statement that should be made in the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I cannot hear the answers and I am not going to be able to hear the question. We need to have a little order, please.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister needs to learn what is going on in his own caucus. It was the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform who revealed the government's hidden agenda on religious freedoms. He said that public officials who cannot perform same sex marriage for reasons of conscience or religion should be fired and sanctioned.
How can the government wallow in the hypocrisy of pretending that it is going to protect religious rights when it clearly has an agenda to remove them?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only hidden agenda is with the opposition.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, freedom of religious expression is a Canadian right that Canadians are not prepared to compromise. The Minister responsible for Democratic Reform said that public servants should be disciplined or fired if they do not perform same sex marriages.
Why would the government force public servants to forfeit their religious beliefs to satisfy the bigoted view of the Liberal Party?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government respects the charter and the Supreme Court decision. I would ask the opposition to do the same thing.
* * *
[Translation]
Textile and Clothing Industry
Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I personally tabled the report on the remission order for the apparel and textile industry, which will expire at the end of the year. The Minister of Finance recently announced in this House that he planned to announce concrete measures for these two important sectors shortly.
Knowing that Liberal members have worked nonstop and that consultations have been held with representatives from these two sectors, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance for an update.
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the apparel and textile industry consists of several hundred companies across Canada which employ close to 150,000 Canadians. I have repeatedly indicated that a number of urgent issues affecting the industry will be addressed by the government before the end of this year. In fact, I intend to do so later today.
Combined federal support for the apparel and textile industry currently amounts to about $41 million per year. Due to the hard work of Liberal government caucus members, that support will more than triple over the next five years in a combination of tariff relief, duty remission and sectoral adjustments.
* * *
(1445)
Commercial Bankruptcies
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, hundreds of pulp mill workers in Nackawic, New Brunswick are losing their pensions because Canada's bankruptcy laws are stacked against them.
There are 10,000 commercial bankruptcies in Canada every year and employees lose wages, benefits, and pension contributions because they rank at the bottom of the list of creditors.
When will the Minister of Industry fix Canada's bankruptcy laws so that working people are given first priority in the event of a bankruptcy? How do priorities get so screwed up, so that everybody is taken care of except Canadian voters who support this nation?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and Housing and I are working on Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency laws. We will have some changes to propose in the new year.
* * *
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if Bombardier does not have the immediate attention of the minister on aerospace policy, it will be without pension parachutes. The departure of Paul Tellier and the free fall in that stock have created great concerns for the industry. In fact, the Liberals are once again coming in for a crash landing with Bombardier because they do not have a national aerospace policy.
When will the Minister of Industry have a national aerospace policy, so that we do not have the Liberals circling above again and creating a weakness in our national trade policy which puts our companies in this situation?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are well along in the development of a national aerospace policy. Bombardier has been having troubles that are a fallout from the crisis in the airline industry. It has been going on for several years.
Paul Tellier has done a great job. I would like to pay tribute to the good work he has done. We look forward to a stronger, healthier aerospace industry going forward, and a healthier, stronger Bombardier. We will be there to support the industry.
* * *
[Translation]
Textile and Clothing Industry
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, “Since he became Prime Minister we no longer exist. We feel unwanted”. Those are the words of the former Liberal minister, Gilbert Normand. Nonetheless, the textile and clothing manufacturers feel the same way. This week, the town of Huntington is losing six plants and 800 jobs, a number that, unfortunately, is likely to go into the thousands.
What nice little trinket will the Minister of Industry be putting in the Christmas stockings of the affected families?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, in cooperation with the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and all members of the government caucus, we have been working on a comprehensive package of measures to assist the textile and apparel industry.
That will consist of a combination of tariff relief, duty remission and sectoral adjustment assistance. Over the course of the next five years we expect to triple our support for this industry.
* * *
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal hack and failed judge Brian Williams has been appointed to chair an inquiry into the Fraser River sockeye disaster. The commercial fishing industry withdrew from the inquiry in protest due to his bias.
Chief Justice Williams lost his authority to decide resource and aboriginal cases due to his bias. The health minister appointed him to head an inquiry, but he was forced to resign because of his bias. He is a donor and adviser to an advocacy group that sought to shut down commercial and recreational fisheries on the Fraser, another bias.
When will the minister give up on Williams and establish the judicial inquiry sought by fishermen?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really beneath the hon. member to attack this particular gentleman who was a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a distinguished British Columbian, and a distinguished Canadian.
It really is beneath that party. It is not surprising that it would want to besmirch the reputation of a judiciary in this country. Those members do not respect the Charter of Rights. They do not respect the courts. That is their nature.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Prime Minister promised that 5,000 full time soldiers would be added to the forces. Recent reports suggest that this will take five years to achieve. My constituents are telling me they want to see us make this Parliament work. Despite our best efforts the Prime Minister's inaction is making it very difficult.
When can I tell my constituents that the Prime Minister has kept his word, and our brave men and women serving in Canada's armed forces will get the reinforcements they were promised?
(1450)
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we heard the Prime Minister in the House just now speak to this very issue. He pointed out that he made this promise which will require substantial assets in the budget. The Prime Minister has said that they are coming. We are preparing for this.
The evidence given the other day before the committee made it clear that the armed forces are preparing to do this in a way in which they can absorb, train and put these new resources to the benefit of Canada, the benefit of Canadians, and the benefit of our foreign policy. We will have a stronger Canadian Forces. We are proud of what we are doing.
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our military men and women place their lives on the line every day for this country. I believe they deserve a more truthful answer than that.
Not only has the government neglected to recruit the 5,000 new troops which it promised in the last election, but it has no plans to house them, no capacity to train them, and no equipment to provide them. Our military men and women cannot wait five more years.
Is this just another example of a broken Liberal promise? Why does the Prime Minister not increase the defence budget today?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): I will rely on you, Mr. Speaker, to determine whether it is correct parliamentary procedure for the hon. member to suggest that I was not telling the truth in my answer.
However, if I have to put up the word of the Prime Minister and what he has achieved for the country in terms of turning the country around, giving us a strong budget to enable us to deliver for our armed services, I will bet on the Prime Minister and this government any time of the day.
* * *
[Translation]
Textile and Clothing Industry
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the apparel and textile sectors have seen a huge shift of employment toward countries that use the worst forms of exploitation such as child labour, forced labour, and the total denial of workers rights. This constitutes true social dumping.
Does the government realize that by refusing to ratify the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization, which prohibits the worst forms of exploitation, it loses any ability to exert pressure to put an end to these practices?
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this country has acknowledged the international protocol with regard to child labour. In fact, we have some of the best labour practices in the world. We share them with the rest of the world. We will ensure that we abide by them and promote them around the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept a liberalization that will end up reducing working conditions here and elsewhere to the lowest common denominator.
In future international agreements, does Canada intend to demand the respect of human rights as a condition of the agreement, for instance agreements on the textile industry? As things stand, workers on the other side are denied human rights and workers on this side, lose their jobs.
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that when this country enters into free trade agreements, it does two other important things: an environmental side agreement and a labour agreement. We will continue to do that when we enter into free trade agreements with other partners in the world.
* * *
Firearms Program
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while in Whitehorse in May 2003 the Prime Minister stated that the federal gun registry overrun represented one of the worst examples of governments run amok. A year ago the Prime Minister announced that his new expenditure review committee would examine it.
This committee failed the gun registry on all seven tests that the Prime Minister devised to measure cost effectiveness. Not only is this gun registry blowing another $119 million this year but the government now promises that it will not be ready until 2008.
Why is the Prime Minister pouring millions of good money after bad money--
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member gets the notion that the gun control program is not ready. Of course it is ready. We have registered over seven million guns and millions of people are licensed. Over three million police inquiries have been made to the Canadian firearms information system. This program is not only ready, it has been up and running for some years now.
* * *
(1455)
Taxation
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of National Revenue about the Prime Minister's election promise to help the struggling former employees of JDS Uniphase. He advised that his department was seized of the file and it was working on it. It has been over six months since the Prime Minister promised those people, personally, that he would fix the problem. In February this file will be four years old.
Will the Prime Minister stop dithering? Will he tell his minister to fix this problem right now before the end of the year? Will he help these people, yes or no?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to single out my colleague, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, for his great work in this area. It is in no small measure due to his efforts that my department and the Department of Finance are really seized of this matter as we speak.
* * *
[Translation]
Tourism Industry
Mr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada pledged to find a solution in the very short term for workers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean tourism industry, which is so important to Quebec federal Liberal members. Where do we stand?
Hon. Jacques Saada (Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister responsible for the Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that seasonal workers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean tourism industry will be able to benefit from the program extending the tourism seasons until March 31, 2005. The initiative taken by Canada Economic Development to help the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean tourism industry is not an income support measure, but it follows up on the support already provided to ATR, the regional tourism association, which works to support tourism promotion in foreign markets. The efforts made by ATR now enable us to take another step to consolidate the businesses involved. This exceptional short term measure will benefit tourism industry workers in the region.
* * *
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a 47 year old man, who is the father of two and a graduate of Queen's University, is being held in a Libyan prison after receiving a life sentence in 1998 for helping a group that works toward democratic change in Libya, which is under military dictatorship. According to Amnesty International, Libya's human rights record is horrendous, with reports of torture, death in custody and other punishments on political grounds.
Will the Prime Minister be raising this issue with Moammar Gadhafi when he visits Tripoli later this month?
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whenever he travels abroad, the Prime Minister is always concerned about the status of Canadian citizens.
[English]
The Prime Minister uses every opportunity he has to promote human rights on every one of his trips, and I am confident that he will do the same thing when he visits Libya.
* * *
China
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, three more Chinese intellectuals were thrown in jail for being critical of that government. This is part of a widespread campaign to silence opposition. Forcing political prisoners to work in government-run mines, destroying the Tibetan nation and jailing legitimate dissent is business as usual in communist China.
This repressive regime gets away with these human rights abuses because leaders like the Prime Minister only pay lip service to human rights and refuse to take action. Why is the Prime Minister rewarding this despotic nation with a full state visit?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely obvious that the Prime Minister cares very much for human rights everywhere around the world. He will use the opportunity when he visits China to promote human rights, but we have a responsibility for all Canadians, and it is to engage with China. China is a very important partner of the international community. It is now a member of the World Trade Organization.
Opportunities are there, and our Prime Minister is promoting Canadian interests when he does these things. We will promote human rights in China and everywhere else.
* * *
[Translation]
Textile and Clothing Industry
Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Carpet Institute is greatly concerned that the House of Commons apparently included in the call for tenders to replace the rug in this chamber requirements which effectively exclude any Canadian business.
Given the very difficult times the textile industry is going through, could the Minister of Public Works tell us how he justifies his department systematically excluding Canadian carpet manufacturers, when at least two of them, more specifically Quebec based manufacturers, would be able to carry the contract out adequately?
(1500)
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons has been seized of this matter and is currently considering all the options. No decision has been made regarding the carpet of the House. Hopefully, we will some day have a new carpet, which will be green and be made in Canada.
* * *
[English]
Justice
Mr. Marc Godbout (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. It concerns the very important subject of trafficking of children.
It was brought to my attention that Canada has not yet ratified the United Nations optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
What will the Government of Canada do to address this important question, and thus better protect the rights of children, both domestically and internationally?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the protection of children against all forms of sexual exploitation, including child pornography, is a priority of the government. It was reflected in the first piece of legislation, Bill C-2, introduced in this Parliament. In the Speech from the Throne, we announced that we would take steps regarding the trafficking in children.
We have signed the optional protocol. We are now consulting with the provinces with a view to securing ratification as soon as possible.
* * *
Transport
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian standard for anti-theft vehicle immobilizers is recognized as the best in the world, yet Transport Canada has published its intent to adopt the much weaker European standard that can be compromised by car thieves using the simplest of tools.
The Canadian standard makes it very difficult to steal vehicles as the systems have proven to be almost impossible to compromise.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Why is Transport Canada considering adopting an inferior European system?
[Translation]
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I appreciate it and will discuss the matter with my officials at the earliest opportunity.
* * *
[English]
Governor General
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga—Erindale, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the budget of the Governor General. Since the appointment of the current Queen's representative, some expenses related to her operations or travel have been channeled through other departments such as foreign affairs.
Now that her budget has been cut, will expenses of equal or greater value be rerouted through any other government accounts for the remainder of the budget year?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the expenses appropriated to the Governor General, the answer is no. Her travel that was supported through the departments had already been cut back. Her overall budget had already been cut back in the budget review earlier this year. This additional 10% cut in the last quarter is on her operating budget for Rideau Hall and the activities which she undertakes as Governor General. She will have to address that. It is 10% in the last quarter.
The Speaker: Since this is the last sitting day before our break, I wish to advise all hon. members that there will be the usual reception in Room 216, beginning at 5:30 p.m.
[Translation]
All hon. members are invited to join me there, so that we can raise our glasses to the holidays.
[English]
The hon. House leader for the official opposition has the usual Thursday question, even though this is Tuesday.
* * *
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC): Especially, Mr. Speaker, since we already made it Friday.
I would like to ask the government House leader if he could tell the House what we will do on January 31 when we come back here, so we can get primed. We know we will have a very busy vacation, and hopefully we will all get a bit of a rest.
We are anxious to come back. We would like to know what we will do for that first week.
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the House returns, it will take up the business that normally would have been debated for most of the second half of this week, namely the annual prebudget debate itself. We will then turn to bills that have been reported from committee or introduced in the last few days.
Thursday, February 3 will be an allotted day.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker as the longest serving member for Kingston and the Islands since Confederation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Tony Valeri: I have one more thing. I would like to wish all parliamentarians and all Canadians from coast to coast to coast a very merry Christmas and a happy holiday.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-33, the budget implementation act, 2004, for second reading today. The bill implements many of the income tax measures that were introduced in the 2004 budget. It also contains proposed legislation included in the budget related to the air travellers security charge and a sales tax agreement between the Government of Quebec and certain interested Indian bands.
I will touch on each of these issues in more detail, but first I would like to begin my remarks with a brief overview of the 2004 budget, which will provide the context for the measures in this bill.
Budget 2004 was introduced as a focused budget with two clear objectives. One was to provide responsible and prudent financial management and the other was to give tangible shape and focus to the vision, presented in last February's Speech from the Throne, of strengthening Canada's social foundations, building a 21st century economy and restoring Canada's place of pride and influence in the world.
This ambitious agenda includes: living within our means by balancing the books, controlling spending, continuing to reduce debt, and enhancing financial management and accountability; giving Canadians greater means to enhance their well-being by taking important new steps in key areas such as health care, learning and communities; and giving Canadians the opportunity to succeed, to enlarge their ambitions and pursue their dreams.
Prudent budget planning has been the cornerstone of Canada's economic track record in recent years. This approach has allowed the government in budget 2004 to take realistic but far-reaching action to build a new agenda for Canadian achievement.
It is, however, an agenda for a government that lives within its means, providing better value for the taxpayer's dollar while making investments needed to help Canadians enhance their well-being and the well-being of their families.
This brings us to the legislation that is before us today. Bill C-33 is comprised of three main parts: amendments to the Air Travellers Security Charge Act; amendments to the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act; and amendments to the Income Tax Act and related acts. If I may, I would like to outline those measures, beginning with the air travellers security charge.
As hon. members will recall, in response to the events of September 11, 2001, the December 2001 budget allocated $7.7 billion through 2006-07 for a comprehensive plan to enhance personal and economic security for Canadians. This amount included $2.2 billion to make air travel more secure in accordance with rigorous new national standards, including the creation of a new federal air security authority, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.
At the time the air travellers security charge was announced, the government indicated that it would review the charge over time to ensure that revenue remains in line with planned expenditures for the enhanced air travel security system through 2006-07.
Following up on this commitment in budget 2003, the government reduced the charge on round trip domestic air travel to $14 from $24, a reduction of 40%.
Based upon updated revenue and expenditure projections, this budget proposes further reductions as follows: for air travel within Canada, the charge is reduced to $6 from $7 for one way travel, and to $12 from $14 for a round trip; for trans-border air travel, which essentially includes travel between Canada and the U.S., the reduction is to $10 from $12; and for other international travel, it is down to $20 from $24.
These reduced charges would apply to tickets purchased after April 1, 2004. The government will continue to review the charge over time to ensure that the revenue from the charge remains in line with the expenditures on the enhanced air travel security system.
The second part of the bill deals with first nations people. The government has expressed its willingness to put in effect taxation arrangements with interested Indian bands. To date the government has entered into taxation arrangements allowing nine first nations to levy a tax on on-reserve sales of fuel, tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. Canada and the eight self-governing Yukon first nations have entered into personal income tax collection and sharing agreements.
In 2003, the government introduced legislation to provide authority to interested first nations to levy on their lands a first nations goods and services tax that is fully harmonized with the federal goods and services tax. The government is also prepared to facilitate the establishment of taxation arrangements between provinces, territories and interested first nations.
(1510)
In that regard, Bill C-33 proposes amendments to the first nations goods and services tax to facilitate the establishment of taxation arrangements between the Government of Quebec and interested first nations bands situated in Quebec.
The purpose of this initiative is to help those first nations achieve a greater degree of self-reliance and self-government. Hon. members may be assured that this government remains willing to work with interested first nations on putting these types of arrangements in place.
Part 3 of Bill C-33 introduces a number of income tax measures. Time does not permit me to describe all the measures contained in the bill. I would, however, like to outline some of the initiatives that are integral to the government's priority of ensuring that we have a fair and effective tax system.
For example, in Bill C-33 we introduce tax relief for Canadian Forces personnel and police deployed to international high risk operational missions. We improve tax fairness for persons with disabilities and those who care for them. We make the tax system fairer and improve the tax treatment of small businesses. We introduce a new regulatory regime for registered charities.
If I may, I would like to discuss the measures with respect to Canadian Forces personnel, which provide tax relief for Canadian Forces personnel and police deployed in international high risk operational missions.
Canada's military and police serving on international missions provide testimony to Canada's commitment to world peace and stability. They serve on important missions around the globe, working in partnership with the United Nations and our NATO allies. The budget provides special recognition of these brave Canadians.
Effective January 1, the employment income that these individuals earn while deployed on those missions will be exempt from income tax. This tax relief will apply on income up to the highest level of pay earned by a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces. It is important to note that this tax initiative includes the extension to additional missions announced on April 14, 2004.
The Government of Canada views greater inclusion of Canadians with disabilities as a national priority. Greater inclusion contributes not only to the well-being of persons with disabilities themselves, but also to the life and economy of the communities in which they learn, work and volunteer.
That is why budget 2004 includes measures to help persons with disabilities, building on past actions taken by the government. Specifically, this includes provisions to allow caregivers to claim more of the medical and disability related expenses they incur on behalf of dependent relatives and to allow a tax deduction for the costs of disability supports required for employment or education, such as talking textbooks or sign language interpreters.
The second measure acts on an early recommendation of the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities.
The government recognizes that entrepreneurs and small businesses are a key source of economic growth and job creation in Canada. The initiatives contained in the bill reflect the government's commitment to helping entrepreneurs and small businesses succeed through supportive tax, regulatory and contracting policies.
It is important to mention that the suggestions from entrepreneurs and small businesses have formed an important part of the budget consultation process over the years. Indeed, the government welcomes all suggestions that support the emergence and growth of small businesses in Canada.
I will briefly touch on two of the income tax related measures contained in the bill that affect small business.
First, the government recognizes that it can sometimes take many years before new businesses begin to earn profits. Small businesses have submitted representations that the existing seven year carry-forward period for business losses is not long enough, particularly for new businesses undertaking risky ventures.
(1515)
In response to that concern and to provide additional support, particularly in the small business sector, this bill proposes to extend the non-capital loss carry-forward period of all taxpayers to 10 years.
Second, hon. members may be aware that a lower federal corporate tax income rate of 12% applies on qualifying small business income.
This bill proposes a measure to help small businesses retain more of their income for reinvestment and growth. Accordingly, the bill accelerates a previous initiative to increase the amount of eligible income for the 12% small business tax rate provided to small businesses.
This means that small businesses will have access to a $300,000 limit by 2005, two years sooner than previously announced.
Canadians depend on community based non-profit organizations that have activities as diverse as education, culture, the arts, the delivery of social services, faith, international aid, health, and the environment.
Although some of these charitable organizations rely on volunteers while others have paid employees, they are similar in that they work for the greater good of communities of all sizes in every region of the nation. In recognition of their contribution to the well-being of Canadians, budget 2004 contains a number of initiatives that benefit the voluntary sector of the social economy.
The 80,000 charities registered under the Income Tax Act form a significant part of Canada's voluntary sector. These charities deliver social services and financial support tailored to meet the diverse needs of individuals and communities. Canadians recognize the value of charitable giving and the important contribution that Canada's registered charities make toward improving quality of life.
Canadians must be able to donate to charities with full confidence that their moneys will be spent on charitable programs and services. Registered charities, for their part, need to know that the rules are clear and are administered fairly and transparently. They must also have the flexibility to effectively manage the gifts entrusted to them by Canadians.
Budget 2004 proposes significant changes to the tax rules for registered charities that will help advance these goals. Let me explain.
First, the budget responds to the 75 recommendations of the joint regulatory table, a key component of the voluntary sector initiative that was launched in 2000 by the government. These recommendations relate to the improvements to the rules governing charities under the Income Tax Act.
Budget 2004 responds to the large majority of these recommendations concerning registered charities by proposing: first, a new compliance regime; second, a more accessible appeals regime; and third, improved transparency and more accessible information.
The government will invest $12 million a year to implement these reforms.
This is not all that the 2004 budget measures contained in Bill C-33 offer to assist charitable organizations. The bill also takes important steps to improve the rules that determine the portion of charitable donations that registered charities must devote to delivering charitable programs and services, including proposals to support more effective gift management practices by charities. These proposals will help ensure that capital endowments can provide a stable and sustainable flow of funds for the delivery of charitable programs and services.
Finally, as I mentioned at the outset, budget 2004 was introduced as a focused budget plan with two clear objectives, one to provide responsible and prudent financial management and the other to give focus to the vision of strengthening Canada's social foundations and building a stronger economy.
The vicious cycle of chronic deficits has been shattered and Canadians now enjoy the benefits of a virtuous circle. This has led to increased confidence in the Canadian economy, lower interest rates and the robust growth of well-paid jobs.
As the Prime Minister said in the response to the October Speech from the Throne, “The virtuous cycle enables us to lower taxes in an equitable way and to invest in social programs. We will continue in this vein.”
The measures contained in this budget before us today speak to the Prime Minister's words. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-33.
(1520)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for highlighting the elements of the implementation bill.
I am seeking some amplification on one item from the member. It has to do with the corporate tax points on the extension of the non-capital loss carry forwards from, I believe it was seven years to 10 years.
This matter had been discussed for a number of years, even back when I was on the finance committee in the early 1990s. It had to do with whether or not the public was to be on the hook for mismanagement of corporations any further than the seven years. It was a matter of how many years was reasonable to take into account. It could be economic downturn or extraordinary circumstances which businesses were not able to protect themselves against.
There is this question at some point in time that businesses may have made bad business decisions, may have experienced mismanagement, the cost of which effectively would be transferred more to the taxpayers than otherwise would because of the extension.
I wonder if the member could give us a little insight as to why there is the extension to 10 years.
(1525)
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good question and one which deserves a full answer.
The answer is that a loss is a loss is a loss. Whether the loss occurred because of a downturn in the economic cycle, whether it became a loss because of poor planning, or whether it became a loss because of poor management, it is still a loss. I do not know that the Income Tax Act actually recognizes why people lost money, but they did in fact lose money.
The only extension is the additional three years and whether the losses that occurred in the previous seven years had to do with poor management, poor planning, or whatever, I think the same losses apply to the previous seven years as do now apply to the additional three years.
I hope that is a response to what was a thoughtful question. The member has literally served on the finance committee for years and years and has made a major contribution to the function of that committee.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this morning the procedure and House affairs committee met and adopted a report and I would like to seek unanimous consent to present it.
I understand there has been discussions among all the parties in the House and agreement so that I could table the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of committee reports?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Committees of the House
Procedure and House Affairs
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding changes to the Standing Orders.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. One of the things which he brought out quite clearly was that mistakes of the past should not be visited upon the future, as we would say, and that we always try to improve our legislation to make sure that any wrongdoings in the past are corrected. I agree with the member on that.
In light of that, I will ask him, has he now changed his mind in relation to the fact that poor interpretations of regulations in the past have seen provinces, particularly resource rich provinces, being robbed of their resources? Should commitments to change be done as soon as possible to make sure that these benefits go to the people who are deserving in the first place?
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that the hon. member was so interested in my speech. It is unique on his part.
He has asked something of a generic question which I am having trouble relating to my actual speech. Assuming that somewhere in it there is some relationship to the actual question asked, I would not claim perfection for the government. I am sure that my hon. colleague would similarly see that this is not a perfect government. However, my argument would be, and I doubt my hon. colleague would agree, that this is a good government. When we see errors, egregious mistakes, things that could be done better, we do respond in an expeditious fashion. I am sure my hon. colleague would agree with that.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and address Bill C-33, the budget implementation act for 2004.
First, I want to wish all members a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. It will be my last chance to do that before we adjourn.
Let me get to the matter at hand, which is the bill that is part of the March 2004 budget. There are a number of initiatives in it that are very supportable. In fact I spent a fair bit of time with finance officials talking about some of these things. I generally agree with many of the measures in it. Some of them are certainly overdue and they are very welcome.
My problem is not that the government is doing these things; my problem is that the government is not doing enough. If we look at some of the things that are being proposed, the government is basically talking about small ways in which it wants to reduce the tax burden that people have to carry, in small ways to help out. That is fine as far as it goes, but put in context set against the situation Canada is in today, it is just not good enough.
When the parliamentary secretary spoke earlier today on a different bill, on a tax treaty, I said to him that there was nothing wrong with the bill, but my point was that we should be introducing bills in this place where we are actually bringing about substantial tax relief. That is not what is happening in this bill or in any other bill that has been brought forward by the government. That is very disappointing.
I want to talk about that in the context of the parliamentary secretary's speech. He talked about how the government recognizes the importance of small business for instance. He mentioned that in his speech. I thought, I just do not believe that; I just do not believe that the government recognizes the contribution of business.
The reason I say that, and the parliamentary secretary knows this, is that before the finance committee this year, dozens of people came forward and said, “Do you not recognize that we are in the middle of what amounts to a productivity crisis in Canada?” Over and over again witnesses would come to us and say, “You have got to do more. You have got to be aggressive when it comes to addressing this productivity problem that we have”.
My colleague from Peace River mentioned it. I thought he said it well. He said that we are sleepwalking toward mediocrity in Canada. I agree with him. That is a very good way of putting it. What we mean by that is in Canada today our standard of living is stuck at about 85% of that of our largest trading partner. The reason is that we have not taken the public policy decisions that would allow our economy to operate at full capacity, to create more jobs, to create better paying jobs, to raise the standard of living, to provide government with more and more revenues to deal with some of the big social problems that we have today and other ones that will be coming at us down the road when we hit that demographic wall in about 10 or 15 years.
We heard this I do not know how many dozen times at the finance committee. However we just do not see it reflected in any of the government legislation.
We are very disappointed that Bill C-33 does not really acknowledge the situation that we are in today in Canada with respect to improving the business climate. I just do not believe that the government takes the problems that face small business seriously. That was the claim of the parliamentary secretary but I just do not buy it.
The government often claims that it stands up for the little guy. I do not know how many times I have heard that over the years, many times. If the government were here to stand up for the little guy, it would not ignore the testimony of dozens of people who face these productivity challenges every day.
There are 1.2 million unemployed people in Canada today. I would argue that if for no other reason we must start to address the productivity problem so that we can start to help those people. What does a productivity problem mean to the average person? It means that if the economy is not moving at capacity, if the government is not taking the steps necessary to unfetter business and entrepreneurs so that they can go about making more money for their businesses, expanding their businesses which leads to hiring more people and leads to rising incomes, if we cannot take that problem seriously, then the government should pack it in. It should give up.
That is fundamental to what a government is supposed to do. A government is supposed to make public policy decisions that address the biggest problems that face the country today. One of the biggest problems we have is 1.2 million unemployed people.
In many regions of the country that is a big number. It is in some ways so big that it masks the problem at a local level. In some regions of the country, Atlantic Canada, the northern regions and various rural areas, unemployment is through the roof. When unemployment is through the roof, there are all kinds of social ills that follow.
(1530)
Unemployment is also a serious problem in parts of the country, such as Atlantic Canada. In some areas of Newfoundland there is 20% to 25% unemployment. We have to be aggressive in addressing these problems.
As my colleague from Peace River said the other day, the government is sleepwalking toward mediocrity, and that is what we are doing in Canada today by failing to address this.
The parliamentary secretary in his speech today said that the government has been running surpluses and that it is a great thing. Yes, it is a great thing but the problem is that the government is not managing the surpluses in the proper way. I want to give an example of what I am talking about.
Since we started to run in the black the government has spent an inordinate amount of money on all kinds of things that do not produce a more productive economy. Witnesses who appeared before the finance committee talked about this. I have forgotten which witness it was, it might have been Dale Orr, but one of the witnesses said that about 25% of all the spending the government has done since we have gotten into the black has been on things that are productivity enhancing. In other words, 75% has not been. Now some of these things we have to spend money on, even though it does not necessarily strengthen the economy or cause more jobs to be created and those kinds of things, but to see that kind of a skew tells me something, which is that the government's spending is way out of balance.
The situation that arises when so much of that spending goes toward things that do not cause the economy to be more productive, create more jobs and generate more revenues for the government, is that eventually the surpluses get smaller and smaller because businesses are not getting the breaks that allow them to compete so that they can create the jobs that create more revenues ultimately for the government. The problem with that is that as we move toward that demographic wall that we will hit in a few years when baby boomers start to retire, we will put a huge strain on our social programs.
We had all kinds of witnesses come before the finance committee and talk about that and about the need to deal with this problem now. If we do not start to manage the size of the surpluses now and broaden the tax base so that we have more income coming in down the road, then we will not be able to deal with it at that time. In other words, we cannot address it when it happens. We have to start addressing it 10 years ahead so that our surpluses are big enough to fund those social programs down the road.
This may be counterintuitive for some people but for me it makes sense that one of the most important ways to do that is to cut taxes. People will say that if we were to cut taxes that would mean a lot less revenue would be coming in. I have heard that argument from members on the government side but even the government has had to acknowledge in the last couple of years that when it brought in its tax cuts, which were very tepid in my opinion, revenues went up.
We saw that in the annual financial report this year where we had finance officials expressing surprise that corporate taxes were going up and had gone up dramatically even though corporate taxes had been cut. That is not counterintuitive to me. That makes sense because all of a sudden these businesses have the capital that allows them to expand which then helps them to generate more profits. It also means that they hire more people because those people go out and gather more business for them or produce more for them and ultimately make them a profit, and of course those people who were hired pay more taxes too.
Ultimately we get the virtuous circle that the member spoke of. I would like to argue though that the government often confuses a virtuous circle with wandering in circles, which I think is what it does a lot of the time. My point is that one of the ways the government can deal with this looming demographic crunch is to begin reducing taxes in a strategic way so that the economy becomes more productive.
(1535)
I have used the word productive many times today, but this is not about working more hours every week. This is about ensuring that businesses have the capacity to buy state of the art equipment that will allow them to produce more and do more. In doing that it will allow them to compete with the Americans, the Japanese, the British and the French, all of the people we have to do battle with every day in the world of business. We need to have the capacity to buy that equipment, buy that knowledge in some cases, and buy services from people in order to compete.
As I said, this is not about working more hours. Canadians work very hard. We work as hard as anybody else. It is just that bad public policy decisions have deprived us of the ability to buy the equipment and obtain the knowledge and the skills that are necessary to compete.
Without that, it means that our standard of living will remain about 15% lower than that in the United States. It never used to be that way. We never used to have a big gap in unemployment either. We never used to have a big productivity gap. We used to be on a par with the United States. We saw that reflected in our currency a generation ago. However that has all changed, notwithstanding the rise and now the sinking of the dollar. My point is simply that we must start to reduce taxes.
The parliamentary secretary talked a bit about taxes so I started to make a list of the taxes that people in Canada pay. Sometimes we forget how many different taxes we pay. In Canada today we pay personal income tax, corporate tax, goods and services tax, capital gains tax, capital tax and excise tax. In fact we pay the GST on excise tax on fuel. We pay surtax, property tax, sales tax and payroll tax. We also have to pay various sundry fees and levies of all kinds. For example, to get a passport we have to pay for it. We have hundreds of user fees in Canada on top of all that.
What this boils down to is that 49% of the income of a family earning the average income in Canada today goes toward taxes according to the Fraser Institute. If we set aside the productivity argument for a moment, and think about what that does to a family that is trying to save money to send their kids off to university, or save money for their retirement, or to buy a home, how do they do it when half of their income is eaten up by taxes? The problem is getting worse.
The Fraser Institute produces a study every year which determines when tax freedom day will occur in Canada, which is the day in the year after which people start working for themselves and before which every cent they earn goes toward government. We have to work more days in a year now to pay taxes when it should be going the other way.
We have a serious problem, not just on the productivity front but we have a serious problem when it comes to ensuring that people have enough income to look after their own needs. It is at the point now where people pay more in taxes than they do for food, shelter and clothing. That is absolutely crazy.
I am not going to suggest the government does not need some revenues for important programs. We think it does. We think there should be some smart spending, such as some spending on defence for instance. However we also argue that the government has let spending get out of control.
Since 1997 we have seen spending on programs go from $106 billion to $150 billion now. Spending in the last number of years has gone up an average of 5.7% a year. That is simply unsustainable. Revenues have gone up a fraction of that. Revenues have not gone up nearly as quickly as spending has gone up.
(1540)
We will run into a problem down the road when we start dealing with the demographic crunch and trying to find ways to ensure we can look after people when they hit those retirement years.
I appreciate the parliamentary secretary making his case for th