2005-03-11

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Anne McLellan (for the Minister of Transport): 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Anne McLellan: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the third reading stage of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act.
The bill reflects the Prime Minister's commitment announced on December 12, 2003, to rationalize responsibility for marine safety policy under the Minister of Transport.
Since 1995, responsibility for marine safety has been divided between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Those ministers and their departments have worked closely together regarding vessel safety on water and to protect marine environments.
In spite of this excellent collaboration, the division of responsibility has presented difficulties. The complete separate regimes for pleasure craft and for commercial vessels were particularly problematic. There were operational challenges to decide which departments personnel were responsible for a particular vessel and which rules applied.
More important, the split was not convenient for stakeholders, the marine industry and millions of Canadians who use our vast waterways for recreational purposes. It engendered unnecessary complexity and ambiguity, making it difficult for stakeholders to know which department they should be dealing with. The bill responds to stakeholder concerns and is welcomed by both commercial and recreational boating interests.
Policy responsibility for marine safety and protection of the marine environment has now been consolidated at Transport Canada. The policy responsibilities transferred from the Canadian Coast Guard, held since 1995, include the responsibility for regulations governing pleasure craft safety, marine navigation services, pollution prevention and response, and the protection of navigable waters.
As well, certain operational and program responsibilities, such as boating safety, promotion and awareness programs, have moved into the Transport Canada portfolio.
With these new responsibilities, the governor in council transferred certain parts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. These changes make Transport Canada the single service window for Canadians for input on marine safety policy, standards and legislation. The changes also permit the Canadian Coast Guard to focus on its service delivery role, including navigation services and search and rescue.
The government's purpose in rationalizing marine safety responsibility is to improve efficiency in both aspects of safety regulation, policy and operations. For example, bringing together the safety requirements for pleasure vessels and commercial vessels will, as far as practicable, promote harmonization of the rules.
The amendments in Bill C-3 affecting oil pollution prevention and response will resolve much of the complexity in the responsibilities for responding to critical situations which threaten environmental degradation.
It needs to be emphasized that, while important functions and responsibilities have been transferred, the content of the functions and responsibilities remains the same. The rules governing marine safety have not changed. There are, therefore, no financial considerations, no environmental impacts and no considerations of international relations.
Bill C-3 is needed to reflect, in legislation, the changes in responsibility decided by the Prime Minister. The bill makes clear to government officials, industry and to the public where the duties and accountabilities lie.
Although this is a machinery of government bill with no new policy content, it is nonetheless important. It is important because it clarifies and improves the legislative and administrative framework for regulating marine activity in the interests of safety and the marine environment.
Transport safety and efficiency are vital to Canadian competitiveness and marine transportation has been a major part of the Canadian transportation network. Improved clarity and efficiency in the legislation contributes to the competitiveness of our transportation system and the productivity of our industry.
Maritime commerce is national and international and we must have an international vision in our regulations of that trade. The improvements made in the legislative framework by Bill C-3 facilitate our participation in international decision making about the content of conventions and treaties for the protection of marine safety and the marine environment, as well as our ability to implement international norms.
The bill would amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act.
The Canada Shipping Act conferred responsibilities on the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to oversee marine transportation and to implement marine safety, navigation services, pollution prevention and response, and other aspects of this vast, important industry.
The existing statute contains much that is out of date with revisions dating from the day of sailing ships with wooden hulls. It is to be replaced by the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, which was passed by the House in 2000 and to come into force in 2006.
Like its predecessors, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, confers functions and duties on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport to manage the regulations of marine transportation and the shipping industry.
The Canada Shipping Act, 2001, was meticulously drafted to draw as clear a distinction as possible between the responsibilities of the two ministers as they were in dispute at the time. Accordingly, Bill C-3, although simple in conception, involves many small detailed amendments to carry out the desired changes without adversely affecting the logic of the statute.
Bill C-3 has been drafted to implement the Prime Minister's decision on December 12, 2003, in order to set out clearly for all concerned the following: the responsibilities of each minister and department; establish overall policy responsibility for safety and environmental protection on the waterways at Transport Canada; enhance the efficiency, coherence and transparency of the marine regulatory framework for all Canadians; improve service to stakeholders and other Canadians on marine matters; ensure that the same duties and functions are being carried out by the government in whatever department they may reside; continue the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out its operational role; ensure that the powers, duties and functions newly conferred upon the Minister of Transport are clear in order to prevent confusion and litigation; and ensure that the logic and coherence of the statutes are preserved.
The legislation promotes the government's vision of the best transportation system for Canadians, a transportation system that is safe, efficient and environmentally friendly in order to contribute to Canada's economic growth and social development while protecting the physical environment.
The bill has now been reviewed in the Standing Committee on Transport. I would now like to seek the support of the House for Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as members know, Bill C-3 is an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act.
Bill C-3 was one of the first bills introduced in this Parliament. It was of particular interest to me because at that time I had just been named my party's transportation critic. The previous critic for our party was the member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam. He has a veritable wealth of knowledge in the area of transport issues so I was very pleased to work with him. Quite frankly, I am also very pleased that he has now resumed the responsibility of being our transport critic.
Bill C-3 was tabled on the Friday before the break for Thanksgiving. It is interesting to note that it has now come back to Parliament on the Friday before another break for Parliament.
The parliamentary secretary indicated that the bill is of importance to the Prime Minister. He mentioned twice in his speech that the Prime Minister made the announcement of these changes on December 12, 2003, so it must be important if it happened on the day the Prime Minister was sworn into office. I am sure he was preoccupied by many things on that day, but it was the day on which he announced the changes to the Canada Shipping Act and related statutes that have now become Bill C-3.
I did not have any prior consultation concerning the bill before it was introduced into the House, but when I did have a look at it I was a little surprised at its content. I thought the subject matter of the bill was already within the purview of the Department of Transport.
On further investigation, I found that this was in fact the case up to 1995. Some changes were then made which removed that responsibility from the Department of Transport and placed it with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Eight years after that move was made, the government realized a mistake had been made. In fact, what is taking place here is a re-organization to correct what I think most people would agree was a mistake.
As transport critic, I recommended in the House that we should support Bill C-3. I think that is and should be the spirit of the 38th Parliament. This is a minority Parliament, and I think the responsible role for members of the opposition is to look at whatever is proposed in the House and, if it makes sense for Canada, if it is good for Canada, support it. After having looked at the bill, I have no hesitation in recommending to my colleagues that this is something we should support.
One of the objectives of Bill C-3 is to free up the Coast Guard to focus on its operational mission. I could not agree more with that. Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that the Coast Guard should be doing an awful lot more than it is doing at the present time. I have raised this matter in the House before.
The Government of Canada is not doing enough for border security, particularly along the waterways that separate Canada from the United States. I have made it very clear to the House that I have been upset over the years after realizing that the Niagara Regional Police Service has to take up much of the international security responsibilities in the waterways in the region of Niagara, including parts of Lake Ontario, the Niagara River and parts of Lake Erie.
In my previous incarnation as a regional councillor for the City of Niagara Falls, having looked at the Niagara regional police budget, I was shocked to see how much money it is paying to patrol the waterways. Good heavens above, I said, we do not have to be constitutional experts to figure out that this is the responsibility of the federal government. Whether it is the RCMP, the Coast Guard or other elements of Canadian security, the federal government should be responsible for this.
At the same time, I want to be very clear that the Niagara Regional Police Service has never complained about taking up this or any other responsibility. It is one of those police forces that steps to the front, assists the public and does what is right for whatever role it is given. Nonetheless, in my opinion this is not right.
Bill C-3 focuses on the Coast Guard and on allowing it to get back to its operational responsibilities. Let me tell members that I think its operational responsibilities should be far more extensive than they are. Far more resources should be going to this. The government was very quick after 9/11 to start imposing taxes for national security. Indeed, the Minister of Transport will tell the House about the hundreds of millions of dollars the government made off the security tax just at the airports. Hundreds of millions of dollars come into government coffers and Canadians would like to see some of those dollars get back to what they are supposed to be doing, which is protecting this nation. I will continue to raise this and push for that in the House.
With respect to the bill, it is a step in the right direction. It corrects a mistake that was made back in 1995. Indeed, as I have said before, I wish all the mistakes of the government could be so easily corrected. It is too bad that we could not have some kind of an omnibus bill to reverse all the mistakes that have been made by the Liberal Party in its eleven and half years in office, but we can perhaps save that for another day.
That would be an interesting piece of legislation, would it not? It would probably be a very big bill. That is why I say that to correct all the mistakes that have been made it would have to be an omnibus bill. Certainly this bill would correct one of them and the official opposition will support it.
Mr. Raynald Blais (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on Bill C-3 at third reading.
I cannot begin my speech without referring to some of the comments just made. With regard to the 1995 mistake—transferring responsibility from the Department of Transport to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—I get the feeling that, 10 years later, they are going to correct the first mistake by making another one.
Here is the second mistake. Upon consideration, Bill C-3, obviously, is only an administrative change. The Canadian Coast Guard's problem is not administrative in nature, but rather due to a lack of consistency and funding. This is a major problem—I will have the opportunity to talk about this in detail during my speech—given its numerous responsibilities.
I do not get the feeling today that the government is behaving responsibly by introducing this purely superficial and administrative change. There is no attempt to get to the bottom of things and I will talk about this for the next few minutes.
I just want to remind the House why we think that this bill at third reading, in the end, presents no new solutions instead of doing what needs to be done. We have looked at documents published by the Library of Parliament, which simply say that the administrative bill clarifies the December 2003 transfer of powers for marine safety from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport. It consolidates policy responsibility for all aspects of marine safety in Transport Canada. It improves the responsiveness, coherence and consistency of the marine regulatory framework in Canada. It enhances service delivery on marine matters for all stakeholders. It ensures that the roles and responsibilities of the government remain the same in whatever department they are found. It preserves the authorities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to carry out the operational role assigned to it. It ensures that the powers, duties and functions transferred from DFO to Transport Canada are unambiguous, in order to prevent disputes and it preserves the logic and coherence of the affected statutes.
Examining each of these elements or parameters, I can see, on the face of them, that we cannot support the bill as presented. It is purely and simply an administrative change that will do nothing to correct the situation.
The situation is as follows. In September 2000, the Canadian Shipowners Association wrote the following about the Coast Guard:

The Canadian Coast Guard provides a series of services which impact on the commercial fleet. The maintenance of aids to navigation, icebreaking services and dredging are all services utilized to some extent by CSA members. Faced with budget reductions, the Coast Guard has begun to introduce new charges for the delivery of all these services.

This has been going on for the past several years. The government has been irresponsible and has done absolutely nothing about the problem of charges to the shipping industry.
The Coast Guard began introducing new charges. The passage continues:

These new costs taken together amount to substantial new operating costs at a time when other transportation services have been able to drastically reduce costs through regulatory reforms and closure of facilities.

This refers to a situation that arose in 2000. As you will see, the situation persists, unfortunately.

New Coast Guard service fees are a national issue effecting users across the country. Together with western and Atlantic marine transportation industry representatives, the CSA participated in the National Marine and Industrial Coalition to provide a common approach to negotiations with the government.

The report continues:

In 1998, consultations were held on the Coast Guard's plans for icebreaking fees. A report of the Marine Advisory Board (MAB) recommended a uniform transit fee with a cap on the maximum number of chargeable transits—. The Coalition responded with a modified proposal. Following a series of meetings with Minister David Anderson and his officials, the Minister agreed to reduce the Coast Guard's target revenue for icebreaking by half. In addition, the Minister agreed to freeze charges at this level fort hree years—
The three-year freeze on fees also applies to charges for aids to navigation. CSA members have argued that the industry no longer requires all the services being offered by the Coast Guard, that efforts to reduce operation costs must increase and that these new costs will negatively impact industry competitiveness.
The Coast Guard re-introduced the dredging services fee in 1998 for one year. Originallyintroduced as a “interim fee” —

This is the Liberal government's usual tactic: interim fees, interim measures. We have heard more than enough of them in connection with employment insurance.

— for commercial ships in the St. Lawrence river in 1997, the fee was extended to September 1, 1999. The government also established an Advisory Committee to review this matter.

One might well call this a ghost committee. This was written back in 2000.
Now I will read an excerpt from Maritime Magazine , a shipping magazine. In its winter 2005 issue, editor Pierre Terrien updates the situation. This is in fact the heart of the problem and where Bill C-3 is needed. The bill number is of no importance, but what is important is some real responsibility with respect to the Coast Guard.
According to Mr. Terrien, the debate on Coast Guard cost recovery, already underway a number of years ago, has used up a lot of newspaper ink and a lot of energy. Even the Commissioner of the Coast Guard is opposed to this accursed federal policy—not my words, they are used in the article—but the only good thing about it is that it will bring together the various bodies concerned with defending and promoting shipping. It has also led to the creation of several coalitions that have brought together around the same table stakeholders from the industrial and manufacturing sectors as well as the usual spokespersons for the shipping sector.
This goes to show that there can be several sides—two and sometimes three—to an argument.
For the marine community, this pulling together of the forces in the field has proven to be the most appropriate change of the past decade, as it gave more consistency to its image and voice.
Nevertheless, this is an “accursed” policy. It is unfortunate to have to use such language, but we can clearly see that, as the years go by, this issue is definitely not progressing, far from it. It is not with the $276 million over five years recently announced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada that we can expect everything to be resolved.
Even Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner Adams acknowledged that an investment of $140 million per year would be required to properly upgrade the Coast Guard. We are not talking about luxuries here. We are not talking about ships that would look like luxury liners. We are talking about major investments, to the tune of $140 million per year, just to achieve at a decent level.
What was announced today for the Coast Guard is interesting. It may sound like a lot of money, but it is really $275 million over five years. Things being what they are, the dividing factor being a mathematical model that cannot be disproved, we realize that the amount being spent is very small in comparison with what is really needed. I think that, on this file, an administrative change will not successfully resolve the fundamental problem.
We are now at third reading. This bill amends four existing pieces of legislation, namely the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act. The enactment transfers powers, duties and functions from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to the Minister of Transport.
I will remind the hon. members that history shows what may be, at the end of the day, the Liberal approach. In 1995, the reverse happened: the powers, duties and functions of the Department of Transport were transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
And now the transfer is happening again. There may well be disputes. The government must make sure that the powers, duties and functions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans being transferred to the Department of Transport are clear so as to prevent disputes. Is that the case? I am not sure.
They are taking one step forward, one step back. They can pedal all they like, they are in neutral. In other words, they are marking time. Meanwhile, problems are piling up. In terms of not only marine safety but safety generally, it appears they are missing the boat. Because, with respect to needs—I repeat, because it is important to emphasize this—they announce a mere $275 million over five years, when the needs estimated by the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, Mr. Adams—I am willing to accept him as an expert in the field and someone who knows what is going on when he talks about the needs of Coast Guard services—amount to some $140 million per year.
As far as democracy is concerned, they are denying the existence of the parliamentary standing committee which issued a unanimous report on the Coast Guard a few years ago, in 2003. In the report, the committee recommends, among other things, the creation of an independent civilian federal agency. There are other recommendations, and I will read them.
I would like to say more about this unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, whose members, I remind the House, come from all political parties. In the end, in introducing Bill C-3, which is purely administrative and cosmetic, the government is completely ignoring this report.
The committee recommends among its 18 recommendations:

That funding to the Coast Guard be increased.

The report does not call for a cosmetic increase. The amount of $275 million over five years may look enormous, but five years goes by quickly, and this is clearly insufficient to meet the real needs.
The committee also recommended:

That the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Coast Guard, guarantee stable, long-term A-base funding for the Office of Boating Safety at a level fully sufficient for it to meet its responsibilities.
That the Canadian Coast Guard be governed by a new Canadian Coast Guard Act that would set out the roles and responsibilities of the Coast Guard.
That the government establish the Canadian Coast Guard as the lead federal agency among the several federal departments involved in marine pollution prevention.
That the Coast Guard be given all the necessary resources and powers to conduct surveillance and collect evidence necessary for the effective prosecution of contraventions.
That, prior to any decision to de-staff lightstations, affected communities and stakeholders be consulted.
That a renewed Coast Guard be established as an independent civilian agency; that the government make an immediate commitment—

This was in 2003.

—that the Canadian Coast Guard receive an injection of capital funding to pay for fleet renewal, upgraded and modernized shore-based infrastructure and the implementation of new technology.

To some extent, this is the context in which we now find ourselves, at third reading. It is the second time that I have risen in the House to address this issue. But for a few exceptions, my comments are essentially the same today. Indeed, the Coast Guard issue requires more than mere cosmetic or administrative changes. It requires significant improvements that are adequate, relevant and that meet existing needs.
It is important to meet those needs because, as members know, we are surrounded by three oceans. I am more familiar with one of these oceans. Since I come from the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and represent it, I know the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of St. Lawrence well.
I can say that, for the past number of years, when people think about the Coast Guard, the question that comes to mind is: when will the next cut be made? This is more or less the context in which we find ourselves now.
With respect to marine services, specifically marine safety and people who might perhaps experience problems at sea and so forth, it does not appear that the Canadian Coast Guard can truly fulfill its mandate. I am not the only one saying so. The fishers, industry stakeholders and even the commissioner of the Coast Guard, the big boss, are saying so too.
There are not enough ships and the Coast Guard's real needs are not being met. That is why, in a last-ditch effort, we are asking the House to vote against this bill and ensure that the current Liberal minority government goes back and does its homework.
Turning its back on its responsibilities and completely ignoring the fact that the Coast Guard requires so much more makes no sense and would result in another scandal to add to the Liberal Party's collection. Ensuring that real resources are allocated and that there is a real consistency in terms of responsibilities is a matter of respect and dignity. This problem cannot truly be resolved by tossing it back and forth between Transport Canada and DFO.
In conclusion, I want to say that the people of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the people who rely on the services of the Canadian Coast Guard, truly need real changes, not a superficial and administrative bill, to ensure that they have a Coast Guard able to protect them and improve on its services. For this reason, neither the marine industry nor the people and the fishers should have to pay the price. I hope too that they will not have to pay with their lives.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a great interest in facilities generally, particularly as it relates to his fishermen.
Occasionally we see in various budgets commitments to invest in infrastructure. However, the infrastructure is in such bad repair across the country and the needs are so great that as good as the commitments seem to be, they have a very minimal effect.
Two years ago people from Small Craft Harbours told us it would take $400 million just to bring their solely owned facilities up to date. Under pressure from the standing committee, it put in $100 million above and beyond. It did not make a dent, and we are still falling behind.
Does the member find that in his region, as in mine, funding provided by government is not meeting our needs?
Raynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his speech and his question. This gives me an opportunity to talk about what is happening in everyday reality. As hon. members know, when a roof is leaking it needs to be fixed or the entire house may be lost. When it comes to the Canadian Coast Guard—the analogy also applies to small craft harbours—the current situation is terrible.
In 2002, Fisheries and Oceans estimated—and the estimate is not mine. If it were mine or that of an independent external company, the figures would have been double or more—that $400 million was needed for repairs and restoration. We are not talking about building new facilities, but restoring old ones. The estimate was $400 million.
According to DFO figures, in 2004 and even in 2005, the figure has reached $500 million. The roof continues to leak, and the cost keeps going up. Repairs are increasingly large, and the situation is quite bad across the board.
I have already had an opportunity to talk about this a few times in committee and I will repeat, here in the House, what is happening in Grande-Vallée, in Saint-Georges-de-la-Malbaie in the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine or even in Percé. Percé is known for its beautiful rock with the hole in it. The wharf to the rock is falling apart. The wharf that enables people to visit Percé Rock is getting holes in it.
Such is the terrible situation in 2005. That is why, when money is announced, for whatever period of time, it may seem like a lot, but it does absolutely nothing to fix what is happening right now.
The situation is getting worse, even dangerous. It is scandalous. It is similar to the scandalous situation in the case of small craft harbours and what is going on with the Coast Guard, because the needs are so great. It is not by patching things up and providing band aid solutions that they are going to truly resolve the situation. They risk simply worsening the situation, as they are doing with the small craft harbours.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, may I first begin by complimenting you on the judicious way you are bringing great credibility to the chair in your performance today. Having said that, I hope you will give me great latitude in the comments I am about to make regarding Bill C-3.
I begin my remarks on behalf of the NDP by paying tribute to the contribution that our critic, the member for Churchill, has made in her tireless efforts to improve Bill C-3 at the committee stage. I also want to recognize the contribution that the NDP member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has made in the context of the Coast Guard and of maritime issues generally and certainly even more pointedly, in the context of shipbuilding which I may come around to within my comments.
I am looking forward to explaining perhaps in a roundabout way the position of the NDP on the bill. We should note the unique nature of the bill. It reverses the choices made in 1994 by the Liberal government when it reversed the changes made to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada. This puts me in mind of a number of changes made in the way the country was run during that era.
It was a very prolific era in terms of reform. In the fullness of time and having had the time to look back and review things, most choices made during that period have been catastrophic. They warrant being reversed by this bill, or perhaps some omnibus piece of legislation could be brought in to mop up after the Liberals because of that era.
In the context of debating Bill C-3, it would be negligent not to point out other things that were happening in that same period of time. For instance, that is when the superportfolio was created at Human Resources Development Canada which lumped together an almost impossible shopping basket of portfolios, programs and areas of jurisdiction such as the Canada pension plan, EI, and training. All of those things were lumped into a superportfolio which we learned later was an unmanageable portfolio. Half of the budget of Canada fell under that portfolio because of the breadth and extent of the jurisdiction. We have learned that was a bad idea. It was bad management.
At the same time there was a scheme to unite the OAS and the GIS. It triggered a blue rinse revolution across the country, much like when Brian Mulroney when he was prime minister tried to deindex the pension. Senior citizens across the country rose up and told the government to put the brakes on that one and the government had to reverse it. There were devastating EI cuts during that period of time which we are still reeling from today. We are incrementally putting that program back together after it was systematically dismantled by the Liberal government.
It has taken us a decade of fighting back to finally repair the effect of those early years of the Liberal mandate. In speaking to Bill C-3 we have to be cognizant of the other failed initiatives of that era.
The bill will have real implications on the ground for environmental protection and enforcement. It has given great cause and concern to members of our caucus for that reason. It deals specifically with pleasure craft. We could support the moving of the management of pleasure craft and its environmental enforcement into the ministry of transport on the assurance that the provinces would be properly consulted and properly compensated if enforcement responsibilities flow with this with added costs and expenses.
I raise this because I personally have had negative experiences with the cross-jurisdictional nature of administration of laws dealing with small craft, pleasure craft and small working boats. I will give one graphic illustration to point out some of the pitfalls of what we are going into today with Bill C-3.
Not too long ago there was a very tragic case on Lake Winnipeg. A 19-year-old man was killed at work on a small fishing vessel. It was the young man's first day at work and he was killed on the job. It should be a routine matter that some agency would get involved in a situation like this to investigate what was a workplace accident, to do a proper inquest, to make recommendations so it could never happen again. It would have helped the family bring some closure by having an investigation into this death, other than the police's cursory investigation to make sure there was no foul play and that it was an accident.
Complications arise when dealing with small vessels inland on the freshwater fishery. With the crossover of jurisdiction, nobody has a clue whose job it is to investigate these things. I personally tried to work with workplace safety and health with the province first of all, but I was told it was a federal transportation issue. I went to the federal jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code, but was told it was not that jurisdiction either. It was not the Coast Guard's jurisdiction. People at the Department of Transport said they could not help.
The family in this case was reeling with shock because nobody wanted to take any responsibility for what was a tragic event of a young 19-year-old boy killed on his first day of work. It was a workplace industrial accident on a fishing boat, which is a workplace; I do not care if the boat is 16 feet long or 60 feet long, it is a workplace. Nobody knew whose jurisdiction it was.
I am drawing this as a parallel because we now contemplate transferring the jurisdiction for all pleasure crafts under this bill. I am pointing out the very real concerns we have about the question of jurisdiction, the complication of jurisdiction, and sometimes the competing interests of jurisdictions. It should be noted that DFO and Transport Canada have completely different priorities, completely different mandates, completely different and sometimes competing agendas.
The room for complication, crossover, lack of clarity and lack of certainty is going to be compounded by what we seek to do here today. With all of these things I am simply saying that any possible conflict between the management of these areas of jurisdiction and the enforcement by the Coast Guard need to be explored thoroughly.
I began by pointing out our general observations about how this is a reversal of work done in 1994. In light of these complications I am addressing today, I can say simply that the bill would have been welcomed in a far more enthusiastic way by the NDP if we had raised the Coast Guard in the context of recognizing the very real need for growing our Coast Guard, for giving our Coast Guard the tools it needs to do an increasingly difficult job and to meet the increasing expectations that we have for our Coast Guard.
Like most of the opposition members present, I expected far more in the federal budget for the Coast Guard than $275 million over five years. This is a paltry recognition of the need. I come from Winnipeg where maritime issues are not always top of mind, but as a Canadian I am well aware that we have the largest coastline of any country in the world. We have a Coast Guard fleet that is not capable of offering any of the services that we expect as a maritime nation. The modernization of the fleet should have been a topic of debate for today if we were serious about reform.
We clearly do not have the ships to meet the needs and the demands of the Coast Guard. Yet, the expectations of our Coast Guard continue to grow.
By way of background, in our involvement and position on the bill, I would like to point out that back in December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister announced that the responsibility for policy on marine security and safety would be centralized under the Ministry of Transport.
To that end, when some parts of marine safety and security were transferred from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Department of Transport, these policy responsibilities gave some consternation to anyone involved. It was at that time I first heard the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore sound the alarm that something was brewing.
It was a rather veiled announcement that the Prime Minister made at that time. It was difficult to determine to what extent the Prime Minister would be going. Was this going to involve navigation services, pollution prevention, or other issues like safety and awareness programs? The scope of what was being proposed was not certain until October 8, when the government introduced Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
At that time our member for Churchill, also fully engaged in this issue, sought amendments at committee regarding environmental enforcement. One of our real concerns was, with this shift of enforcement duties, would environmental safety be first and foremost? Would it get primacy, if you will, in our application of these regulations? We were very concerned it was not.
We believe that pollution properly belongs with the Minister of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment has the tools and the mandate to protect our environment. The Department of Transportation again may be at cross interests, and now, with a new task and a new obligation to enforce environmental integrity, how does that conflict with other aspects of the Ministry of Transportation? These are some of the obvious contradictions that come to mind when we look at what, on paper, looks like a simple administrative transfer of duties and regulations. It is not that simple.
In the field where it matters and on our waterways it is not that simple. We are not sure who we look to. Ship source environmental pollution is a sore point with the government. We know that. The largest environmental fines ever given out in this country were to do with ship source pollution. It was a ship owned by Canada Steamship Lines in Halifax Harbour. This is why I know it is an irritant and the Liberal government would rather downplay it and not make reference to it.
It is a huge problem. With pleasure craft, commercial craft and even military craft from other countries, we find ship source pollution to be a significant worldwide issue that is not satisfactorily addressed. It properly belongs under the environment ministry because it is the Ministry of the Environment that can levy those heavy penalties for ship source pollution.
I am only pointing out some of the reservations made by our critic, the member for Churchill, who at committee valiantly made the case against significant opposition for keeping the environmental aspects for marine pollution protection and prevention with the Ministry of the Environment. Those amendments were ruled out of order.
That is an illustration of the difference between a minority government and a majority government, because at that time in October 2004 there was a majority Liberal government which would not accept common sense amendments. Getting an amendment through at committee six or eight months ago was a very novel thing because of the attitude that the majority will rule in spite of reason and logic.
The Speaker: I am afraid it is time to move to statements by members. The hon. member will have 5 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when this matter resumes, plus, of course, 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Statements By Members
The EnvironmentMr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent federal budget announced an additional $300 million for the green municipal funds of which I understand half will be targeted to the cleanup of brownfields.
The cleanup of these lands can restore otherwise sterile property for new industrial, commercial or retail development providing jobs and generating realty tax revenues. There is also the potential for residential or recreational uses. All the forgoing help to reduce urban sprawl. The benefits are positive. The difficulty is that such rehabilitation is very expensive.
I hope that some of the many Niagara brownfields, particularly along the Welland Canal in Thorold, Welland and Port Colborne, will benefit from this new funding. In particular, a former industrial site in Welland is a prime area for development, as well as surplus St. Lawrence Seaway lands in Port Colborne that are currently the subject of phase III and IV environmental assessments.
I look forward to hearing more details about these funds and how the communities in my Welland riding can apply. I extend our appreciation to the Ministers of Finance and the Environment for their vision and for providing funding for these initiatives.
Government AppointmentsMr. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once stated his commitment to integrity, his belief in changing the way Ottawa works, and his disgust with the democratic deficit. It is obvious how empty those promises were.
Over a year later the government's integrity has sunk to a new low. Ottawa works, as it always has, under Liberal stewardship, and the democratic deficit has become a gaping chasm.
Numerous friends of the Prime Minister have received plumb patronage postings including former Liberal MPs like Manitoba Lieutenant-Governor John Harvard, Allan Rock and others.
Glen Murray, former Liberal star candidate and Liberal convention delegate, is only the latest appointee cozy with the Prime Minister.
The path to success for Liberals is clear: help them out, or better yet, their leader, and they can count on a hearty serving from the patronage stew dollopped out in large scoops by the PMO.
The Prime Minister should respect the wishes of the environment committee and reconsider Mr. Murray's appointment. Let us end the cronyism and let us end it now.
International AidHon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last fall seven parliamentarians attended the Africa-Canada Parliamentary Policy Dialogue in Kenya.
One thing that struck all of us who were in attendance was the threat posed to workers and to the environment by irresponsible businesses.
The UN's Global Compact enumerates 10 principles for good corporate citizenship. CIDA plans to support African companies through the Canada investment fund for Africa.
It is our belief that this fund should only assist companies that respect the UN Global Compact. I urge the government to take the necessary steps to make it so.
Roland BabinRaynald Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute in the House to one of my constituents, Roland Babin of Caplan.
At the recent gala honouring the region's volunteers, held at Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Mr. Babin was named 2004's volunteer of the year for Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands.
Despite being 75, Mr. Babin devotes 20 to 35 hours a week to volunteering with youth and seniors in his region. He has also been heavily involved in Caplan's Festi-Neige, where he sold a record number of tickets.
As the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I want to congratulate him on this honour. I hope he will continue his activities and that his achievements will serve as an example for all those who think that mutual assistance and cooperation no longer have a place in 2005.
Special Olympics Winter GamesHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Rose MacDonald and Michael Morris, two of my constituents, who have both medalled in the cross-country skiing at the Special Olympics World Winter Games in Nagano, Japan.
Rose was a double medal winner, as she won a bronze in the 1 km and won a gold medal in the 500 metre clocking a time of 3 minutes and 49 seconds.
Michael did well also, winning a silver medal in the 500 metre race with a time of 3 minutes and 43 seconds, and won another silver medal in the 4 by 1 km relay freestyle.
I would like to congratulate all the Canadian athletes who took part in the Special Olympics World Winter Games. They did Canada proud.
Festival du BoisMr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, French language and culture are alive and well in British Columbia. Festival du Bois, le festival annuel de musique folklorique de Maillardville was celebrated for the 16th year in Coquitlam B.C., February 27 to March 6 this year.
The Flaunt your Frenchness, quelle bonne idée, is a campaign and festival about celebrating whatever one's Frenchness is: language, ancestors, fashion, music or preference for French food. C'est le printemps in my constituency.
I wish to thank the partners that make this happen: the City of Coquitlam, Citysoup.ca, Société Maillardville-Uni, Société de développement économique, Place Maillardville, L'express du Pacific, Alliance Française, Place des Arts, the Coquitlam Heritage Society and the federal and provincial governments.
Flaunt your Frenchness, fièrement francophone. It is good for everyone.
Nunavut Youth Abroad ProgramMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the successful Nunavut Youth Abroad program. This program allows Nunavut youth aged 16 to 21 to acquire invaluable professional skills and training, and high school credits through a multicultural learning experience in southern Canada and abroad.
The highly acclaimed and heartwarming Road Scholars video, produced by Amberlight Productions, that aired recently on television documented Nunavut youth abroad in Botswana and followed their transformation into mature prospective leaders. The five youths are: Norman Qavvik, Nathan Amarudjuak, Eric Okatsiak, Vicky Gibbons and Charlene Mannik.
The Nunavut Youth Abroad program's main goal is to foster multicultural awareness, individual career goals, and build a sense of international citizenship for the young Nunavummiut. Solid leadership is built through healthy self-confidence and self-esteem by providing truly life changing experiences.
I am very proud of this wonderful program which will build leaders of tomorrow.
AgricultureMs. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the work of the men and women who produce cash crops in Quebec, whose economic and social contributions have been a factor in the development of Quebec and Canada for 25 years.
In Quebec, the grain industry includes over 11,000 producers, who grow oats, wheat, canola, corn and soybeans on more than 900,000 hectares of land. In 2003, its production amounted to $800 million, coming first in plant production and fourth in agricultural production overall.
Grains are primarily used in animal feed, processing into food products for human consumption and the production of certain fuels. Quebec's producers set an example of good crop management with regard to environmental, agronomic and economic constraints.
This important and prosperous economic sector in Quebec and Canada deserves the full support of the federal government.
Conservative PartyMr. David Smith (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will soon have further proof that there is only one truly national party in this House.
I would like, therefore, to wish my friends across the way the best of luck, on the eve of an important convention taking place in Montreal in a few days.
The hon. member for Provencher will certainly agree with me that he will need it, after his recent prediction that the Quebec wing of his party would be taking a beating at the convention, because of positions only slightly more moderate.
The Quebec wing of the official opposition is very likely to lose a few feathers when the ideology surrounding its leader reverts to extreme right positions on bilingualism, minority rights, abortion rights, climate change, public morals and service cuts to citizens.
Fisheries and OceansLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board has operated for the past three years. It is authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act. It is recognized as an innovative governance model for ocean management.
This is what it has become: an innovative group. This board has been able to bring all the stakeholders to the table and the members have been able to work cooperatively to meet the great challenges facing the area. We now see cooperation instead of confrontation.
The mandate of this board ends March 31, 2005. We urge the minister to extend the mandate so that the good work can continue and a model for other areas can be established.
Leader of the OppositionMrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Conservative leader faces a review of his leadership next week, his position on matters of social policy remain unclear. To help answer the puzzle we call Mr. Muzzle, let us review what we do know.
On health care, he never supported the Canada Health Act. Instead he encouraged Alberta to take it on. On the environment, he denies global warming while his members repeatedly describe Kyoto as a communist plot. On child care, he proposes tax credits that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy instead of increasing quality child care options for parents. On improving Canada's communities, he claims a “New deal with municipalities is not a view he would subscribe to”.
With policies like these, it is clear why the word progressive no longer appears in his party's name. It is also clear why that party chose to sit on its hands when it came time to vote on our government's forward looking budget.
HousingHon. Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week there was a disappointing but not surprising report on homelessness in Ottawa.
According to nationally accepted housing standards, families should be able to meet their housing needs on only 30% of their income. However, here in Ottawa, over 65,000 families are paying in excess of 30% of their income on housing, leaving them at serious risk of becoming homeless. In addition, at some point last year over 8,500 people in Ottawa actually were homeless. This is happening here in the Nation's Capital.
Last week's budget did not include the $1.5 billion new money that the Liberals promised for affordable housing. Instead, corporations were handed a $4.6 billion corporate tax break. Liberal priorities are clear: nothing for those who need housing and billions for already profitable corporations.
These are not the values that Canadians voted for last June.
Giani Sant Singh MaskeenMr. Gurmant Grewal (Newton—North Delta, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the world Sikh community lost a towering figure with the passing of Giani Sant Singh Maskeen.
Maskeen travelled around the globe delivering discourses to religious congregations. An exemplary preacher, Maskeen had a gift to reach and inspire his listeners. For nearly five decades, he dedicated his life to religion and was the undisputed number one interpreter of Gurbani. He authored more than a dozen books on Sikhism and his daily discourses of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji were broadcast worldwide on Indian national TV.
Maskeen had a thorough knowledge of Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism and treated all religions with equal respect. He was down to earth and had a simple and frugal lifestyle. He never hesitated to speak the truth.
Maskeen's death is a great loss to the Sikh community, and Sikhs around the world grieve his passing.
I ask all members to join me in conveying condolences and prayers to Sikhs around the world.
Status of WomenMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on March 6, in my region, five women from Lévis approved the five fundamental principles set out in the historic document adopted in Rwanda on December 10.
Isabelle, age 30, who benefits from the support of the Maison Jonction pour Elle women's shelter, explained how she found peace again after seven years of spousal abuse.
Karine Dubé was there to say that she was happy to show solidarity with the most disadvantaged in society.
Patricia Allard, age 34, a single mother of three, who is benefiting from the support of the Connexion-Emploi movement, described all the efforts she had done to obtain justice.
Louise Foisy, who is involved with women social battles, described in the words of a mother and grandmother her struggle for equality for women.
Finally, Nassiba Hammou, an Algerian who immigrated to Quebec 12 years ago, delivered a vibrant speech on freedom.
The Bloc Québécois promotes the five principles that women in Quebec and around the world hold dear: peace, solidarity, justice, equality and freedom.
HealthMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Ashern, Manitoba is being forced by the shoddy mismanagement of the government to depend on two semi-retired doctors to provide it with all its medical services. This should be done by five doctors according to the local health authority. These doctors want to retire, but the communities using the Lakeshore General Hospital cannot find anyone to replace them.
This hospital services five different first nations reserves. Therefore, the government should share some of the responsibility with Manitoba's NDP.
The Liberal government promised to help foreign trained doctors get certification, and it has failed to do anything on this file. The government has to take the blame for the doctor shortages in our rural communities. It is just another Liberal promise made, Liberal promise broken.
The government has to start helping foreign trained doctors get their accreditation and stop dithering. It needs to get them into rural communities and first nations communities like the ones serviced by the Lakeshore General Hospital in Ashern, Manitoba.
The Liberal government has the responsibility to ensure quality health care services are provided to all rural Canadians, including Canada's first nations.
Leader of the OppositionMr. Russ Powers (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we eagerly anticipate the Alliance Conservative convention, one national newspaper is predicting, “Convention will be more tightly staged than Cirque du Soleil”.
First, the Leader of the Opposition decides to muzzle the grassroots members at their convention on social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage. Then, facing a revolt from party members and special interest groups, he lifts the gag order and announces there can be debate on those issues.
Having looked at the rules of procedure for the convention, I thought all members of the House would be interested to know that the debate on these important issues will last exactly two minutes. Four lucky delegates will be given 30 seconds each to air their views.
Is that what the Leader of the Opposition calls democracy in action?
Canadians should not be surprised at the heavy-handed measures that the Leader of the Opposition has used to hide his party's true agenda from the Canadian people.
Tobacco FarmersMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tobacco farmers are in a catch-22 situation. The major tobacco companies are no longer buying Quebec tobacco, so the growers are forced to change crops.
These farmers need immediate assistance from the federal government. However, allocation of the aid package announced prior to the election, in the order of $70 million, is blocked because the stakeholders in Ontario cannot reach agreement. Nine months later, not one cent has been paid out. This is totally unacceptable. The financial crunch is likely to lead to farm land being abandoned.
The Office du tabac jaune du Québec has already made its expectations public and the Government of Quebec has already indicated what its assistance mechanisms will be. Our tobacco farmers are being held hostage by the problem in Ontario, and what is more the reality in Ontario is totally different from that of Quebec.
The federal government must respond to the needs of the Quebec tobacco growers now, without waiting for the Ontario problem to be solved. The situation is urgent. Tobacco farmers in Quebec need help immediately to convert to some other crop starting this spring.

Oral Question Period
Airline IndustryHon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thousands of Jetsgo passengers are stranded today and they are asking two questions: “How will I get home? Can I get my money back?”
The Liberal government has no such worries because the money that Jetsgo owes in taxes is being held in trust so the Liberals protect the taxman and strand the passenger.
What is the government doing to help the passengers?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too am very sorry to see that potentially 17,000 passengers will not get service today from Jetsgo. We are in a free market economy and those things happen.
In the meantime, I have talked to the presidents of WestJet, Air Canada, CanJet and VIA also, and they are providing all the options possible to help passengers get home or get somewhere else.
On consumer protection, in many provinces if the tickets were bought through a travel agency, there is protection. If it is through a credit card, some have protection and some have insurance. There are all different cases.
Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, this is the ninth airline in eight years to go bankrupt because of Liberal dithering on high airport rents, high security taxes and high airline fuel taxes. That is the government's idea of free enterprise, high taxes.
The Conservative Party, the Standing Committee on Transportation, and the airline industry are all calling for these ridiculously high taxes to be reduced.
How many airline bankruptcies will it take for the government to start listening? When is it going to take action?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the leader of the Conservative party, an admirer of U.S.-style right-wing politics, also realizes that five major U.S. airlines are also under bankruptcy protection. I know that the U.S. serves as his model, but is this any better? No.
The reality is that there is fierce competition going on at the present time, which benefits the consumer. I thought he liked the free market economy and was even an advocate of that model. The consequences have to be accepted, both good and bad.
Sponsorship ProgramStephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, tell stranded passengers that they are benefiting from the government's policies.
We hear today that the government intends to sue advertising firms that received millions of sponsorship dollars for little work and kickbacks to the Liberal Party. The irony is almost too much to bear. What happened to, let Gomery do his work?
Does putting this to the courts now not show the government knew the money was stolen all along and is it not just another way to avoid answering questions in Parliament about corruption?
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning there was a parallel process aimed at financial recovery. The Prime Minister promised from the beginning that there would be a financial recovery process.
We established that Mr. Gauthier would do that work. This in no way, shape or form impedes the work of Justice Gomery. We look forward to recovering funds on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.
This is another case of a promise made by our Prime Minister, and a promise kept by our Prime Minister.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is a bunch of nonsense. For months the government has been telling us that it cannot do anything until we have the Gomery commission report. Now we know it is about to launch a lawsuit. Who is prejudging the Gomery commission now?
The fact is that all the players in this sorry mess are friends of the Liberal Party. Why does the Prime Minister not get on the phone, call his friends at these ad agencies, ask for the money back and while he is at it, why not put a call into Liberal Party headquarters and get back some of the money that was diverted there?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, once again there has been a parallel process aimed at financial recovery from the beginning, immediately after the Auditor General's report. The Prime Minister committed to establishing that parallel process. We have done exactly that.
I am proud of the government's response and the Prime Minister's response to the issue and of the fact that we are recovering funds on behalf of Canadian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do and that in no way, shape or form impedes Justice Gomery. What does impede Justice Gomery is the opposition's daily commentary on the testimony before Justice Gomery here on the floor of the House. That is what impedes--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Niagara Falls.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, before the government starts spending millions on a lawsuit, and I would bet that all the money will go to Liberal-friendly law firms as well, why does the Prime Minister not get on his feet and admit that this whole sorry mess right from the beginning had little to do with helping Canada, but it had everything to do with Liberals helping themselves?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, are we to assume that the new Conservative position is that we should not be going after those people who may have participated in this? This would be a remarkable decision for that party.
Let me say that we do not need to take any lessons on transparency from that party, with a leader who muzzles his caucus one day then unmuzzles his party the next day, who tries on a ongoing basis to control the thought process and speaking process of his members of Parliament and his party members, a leader who is so afraid of what his party stands for that he tries to hide it from Canadians.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government just announced that it will prosecute the advertising agencies that were awarded fat contracts and that billed for much more than the work they actually did.
How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services justify his eagerness to prosecute these agencies, considering that he keeps asking us to let the commission do its work when we question him about the Liberal Party giving back the dirty money?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, today we will be initiating proceedings before the Quebec Superior Court.
We filed to recover approximately $39 million from 19 companies and individuals. This is part of a promise that the Prime Minister made immediately after the Auditor General's report. It is a parallel process that has been communicated directly to Canadians and to Parliament throughout this process.
In fact, if the hon. members opposite were paying attention during the proceedings last winter they would be aware of this process, but I guess they do not have very good researchers or are simply dozing off during--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the government is initiating proceedings against the agencies because it feels that there is enough evidence of extra billing. However, whether it is the generous contracts awarded to Jean Lafleur or the forced contributions of his employees, the existence of a Liberal food chain is just as obvious.
How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services be satisfied with prosecuting these agencies while refusing to give back the dirty money? Is this not a case of a double standard?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have been clear, the transport minister has been clear, the Prime Minister has been clear, and the party has been clear on the issue of partisan funds.
Beyond that, part of responding to the member would have us discussing a matter before the court and another part would have us discussing the testimony before an independent judicial inquiry. I will not stand in the House and comment on a matter before the court, nor will I comment on testimony before an independent judicial inquiry.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the different treatment reserved for the agencies and the Liberal Party is very puzzling. They are cracking down on agencies, but when it comes to the LPC, they would rather wait, drag their feet and find all sorts of excuses not to act.
I am asking the Minister of Transport again: why does the Liberal Party refuse to give back the dirty money, when the evidence is crystal clear?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, this is a parallel process that has been ongoing along with the work of Justice Gomery. The Prime Minister has been clear and the government has been clear that we intended to pursue, through the work of Mr. Gauthier, a financial recovery process. In fact, we are doing exactly that.
We are keeping our promises to Canadians. Promises made, promises kept: that is good government and that is defending the taxpayers' interests on an ongoing basis as a good government.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, the agencies are being sued because they received money that they did not deserve and they all made significant contributions to the Liberal Party, totalling at least $400,000.
Since the Liberal Party also benefited from undeserved funds, will the Minister of Transport at least have the common sense to set up a Liberal Party dirty money trust of at least $400,000?
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been clear, the Prime Minister has been clear, I have been clear, and the party has been clear that if there has been any ill-gotten gain in terms of partisan funding, the party will be guided by Justice Gomery's findings, and by both the civil lawsuit and criminal trials, which will be taken into account, and that we are absolutely committed to doing the right thing on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer.
Airline IndustryMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, blaming a free market economy for government's failure to protect consumers just will not fly. For 17,000 Jetsgo travellers there is nothing but heartbreak, confusion and anger today.
When this government deregulated the airline industry, it failed to bring in basic consumer protections. Now how will the government help stranded Canadians? What protections will the government bring in for the future? Who is going to be held accountable for this mess?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the member does not believe in the free market economy, but we are not going to go back to the old way. We are not going to nationalize Jetsgo or any other airline company. We are going to have a competitive market. We are going to help entrepreneurs trying to get into this market. There are good days. There are bad days. This is part and parcel of business.
The consumers are protected. Many of those consumers are protected, for example, if they bought their tickets from a travel agency. In many provinces, there are provisions, money is in a fund and they are protected. If they bought them with their credit cards sometimes they have some protection. Some others have insurance, but we are not--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.
David Christopherson: Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. Nobody is suggesting that at all.
Consumers are not the only ones devastated this morning. There are 1,350 Jetsgo employees waking up to find their jobs are gone and they have no protection for their pensions or wages owed.
Bill C-281, the NDP's workers first bill, is aimed directly at protecting vulnerable workers caught in exactly these tragic conditions. Will this government at the very least commit today to sending this bill to committee and prove to Canadian workers that their Parliament is working for them too?
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side also feel for those employees of Jetsgo who have potentially lost their jobs. There are protections under the Canada Labour Code, part III, which will protect their wages and protect their vacation and severance pay. I know that the airline attendants have protections under the collective bargaining process.
With regard to the bill, the House will decide whether or not the bill should go forward to the committee. We believe that we have already put in place protection for workers with regard to their rights for wages and so on.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today we have learned of another example of Liberal incompetence. Jetsgo announced it is grounding its fleet, and one of the main reasons for it doing so is high airport rents.
Thousands of Canadian travellers are literally left out in the cold because of this government's mishandling of this file. When will the government stop dithering, reduce airport rents and show some action by letting our airline industry in this country remain competitive?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, as much as I am sympathetic to the question, I have to say that in the U.S. there are five major air carriers under the protection of the law and that does not have anything to do with airport rents. In this case there are other carriers in the country that are making business, but obviously--
Mr. Rob Anders: Just cut taxes. Compare taxes to the U.S.
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, that guy is such a big mouth every day, and worst of all, he never stands up to speak. He always speaks from his seat.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps we could have a little order in the House. There is a lot of yelling.
The hon. member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about government protection here. We are just talking about high airport rents. We warned the government time and time again about the problems associated with high airport rents, but the government dithers and does nothing.
Jetsgo is the tenth airline in the last dozen years to fail. This government is doing absolutely nothing for the airline industry and it is also failing Canadians. Will the minister take action today, reduce rents and give our airlines a fighting chance?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member should know that there are no increases for another year. Between now and then I am sure that my colleague the Minister of Finance and I are going to have many discussions. As far as the competition in Canada goes, I think the consumer has been very well served. We can talk to any travellers in the country who have used air services in the last few years. They are very happy with the competition. They get better prices. They get better service. They are very happy about it.
National DefenceMr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the people of the Saguenay are increasingly worried about the possible closure of the Bagotville military base. Hundreds of families depend on this base.
Can the Minister of National Defence reassure the people of this region on this matter and confirm to the House that the Bagotville base will remain open and will not fall victim to budget cuts?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of speculation because the Canadian Forces are reorganizing heavily across the country. This is an essential exercise. That said, however, we have no intention of reducing personnel or equipment at the Bagotville base, which is a key air force base and will remain so.
I hope the hon. member will agree with me when I say that, in order to improve efficiency, the Canadian Forces must be reorganized. That is all we are talking about right now.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are experts at hiding bad news. Several hundred direct and indirect jobs in the Saguenay region are at stake, and these people have the right to some sort of reassurance.
Why is the minister not telling us the government's real intentions for the Bagotville base?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat my answer for the hon. member. In fact, the armed forces, like the rest of this government, are reorganizing to improve their efficiency and ability to defend Canada. I hope that he agrees with me.
However, personnel and equipment on the Bagotville base will not be affected by this reorganization. According to our plans, the Bagotville base remains an important asset to the armed forces.
AgricultureMs. Denise Poirier-Rivard (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the reopening of the U.S. border put off yet again and Quebec farmers facing mounting financial problems, the federal government can come up with nothing better than a $50 million ad campaign to promote beef.
Quebec farmers have already lost more than $240 million. How does the minister explain that he is still unable to find the $12 million needed to guarantee the farmers a floor price of 42¢ a pound at the abattoir for cull?
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased yesterday when the Government of Canada announced $50 million to assist in the marketing of beef. This is in addition to some $2 billion we have already invested.
As the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have said, there is significant additional work to do and we intend to do it.
Denise Poirier-Rivard: Mr. Speaker, will the federal minister, who says he has been negotiating for three months with Quebec farmers in the Colbex case, admit that his loan loss reserve program for abattoir construction and expansion is designed to get around Quebec's plan, which would require financial help in ensuring a floor price for cull?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, that transaction has nothing to do with increasing slaughter capacity. It is simply about changing from one ownership to the other. Obviously if we are trying to increase slaughter capacity that is not the way we are going to invest public dollars.
I have indicated quite clearly that it is important to assist producers. It was great to see the Canadian Dairy Commission put up new money through the price supported milk to assist specifically with cull animals. We will continue to assist. That is an absolute commitment of the government.
Softwood LumberPierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, by refusing to implement a proper aid package to help the softwood lumber industry make it through to the end of the legal process, the government has helped make its financial situation even more precarious, so much so that a number of Quebec lumber companies are in very bad shape at present.
Instead of exhausting the Quebec industry by its inaction, will the government acknowledge that it ought to have put an aid package in place a long time ago, one that would include support for the legal proceedings, loan guarantees and measures for older workers to help the industry get through this crisis?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Minister of International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have always said, we have already provided the industry, the communities, and the softwood lumber workers with support of more than $350 . We are also in the process of discussing these matters with the industry and the other stakeholders. Decisions will be forthcoming.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, there has been very little in it for the industry. The funding in question has gone to the communities, not to the companies affected by the crisis.
Why does the minister not ask the industry to choose between a true aid package that would enable it to hold on until the legal proceedings are over, and a cut-rate negotiated settlement such as he is proposing?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the question as to why the ministers do not give the industry a chance to take part in the discussions to resolve the softwood lumber crisis? They have had a number of opportunities to participate with us and the others. As for funding to assist the industry with its costs, that is another point, currently under discussion.
AgricultureMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday in the House the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food told us that the president would use his first veto to open the border. However, back in the real world, livestock producers devastated by the ongoing BSE crisis need emergency funding now.
The CAIS program has not worked. The loan loss reserve has not contributed to increase slaughter capacity and Canadian livestock producers hang in the balance while the government continues to fumble relations with the United States.
When will the minister stop offering our farmers false hope and start delivering?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of the hon. member on the other side using rhetoric. Nobody in the House said that the American president would open the border by casting a veto. What was said was that he would take the action that took place in congress and that he was prepared to veto that.
The member is quite prepared to make rhetorical statements in the House and not prepared to do anything in the best interest of producers, because that is what we do on this side of the House.
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, reports now indicate that the U.S. border may stay closed to Canadian beef for 18 months or more. It is time to act. The CAIS program does not work. The loan loss reserve program is a farce. It is non-existent and has not contributed one iota to increase slaughter capacity.
It is past time that the government used money from the budget contingency fund to open new packing facilities now.
Will the minister commit to making the funds available for slaughter facilities and will he do it today?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in answer to a previous question, the federal government, yesterday, made a new investment of $50 million to assist the industry.
In addition to that, specifically on slaughter capacity, we reached a low of 65,000 animals per week. We are now at 83,000 animals per week and that will probably be around 88,000 by the mid part of the year.
We need to continue to assist as a federal government. We will take a look at all the different ways we can do that, particularly in slaughter capacity, and we will make the changes that are necessary to make our programming the most effective that it can possibly be.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): But nothing for agriculture producers, Mr. Speaker.
It is no secret that Canadian farmers have been struggling financially with the border closure and years of adverse growing conditions for grains. The 2005 crop year is already in question for many farmers because they cannot afford to put seed in the ground. The farm improvement loans program provided farmers with an option to bank and credit union loans with special interest rates and terms.
With that knowledge, why then is the Liberal government quietly scrapping this desperately needed program in the midst of the worst agriculture crisis since the Great Depression?
Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, once again, a question that has no basis in reality. Nothing done for producers? There were record payments in 2003. Canadian producers received $4.9 billion. We have an income stabilization program. We have production insurance. We have spring advances to assist with the planting. We have fall advances which are used to help market products.
As we have said and demonstrated yesterday, we will continue to make investments in this important Canadian industry.
Labrador RidingLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, they used to picture the minister milking the cows and now they picture him milking the farmers.
Labrador has been without an MP for some time. The concerns of the region are numerous: natural resources, fisheries, transportation and aboriginal affairs issues, and a long term plan for 5 Wing Goose Bay. These issues are too important and too pressing for Labrador not to have a member of Parliament.
Would the Prime Minister inform the House when he plans to call the byelection?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an issue of importance to the Prime Minister and an issue with which we are seized. It is the Prime Minister's prerogative to determine the date. We do understand the importance of ensuring that the constituents of that riding have representation in a timely fashion.
Foreign AffairsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the past year our finance minister has served as a member of Tony Blair's commission for Africa.
Last year I had the opportunity of travelling to four African nations with the minister to speak with the African people to find out just what it was that they needed on the ground.
Today the commission released its report. Could the minister tell the House how this report will set the stage for the African people to finally take charge of their futures? How will it help set the stage for entrepreneurship and growth?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very honoured to serve on the commission for Africa. It is a United Kingdom initiative that builds upon what Canada began at the Kananaskis summit in 2002.
The report is both useful and challenging and covers a broad range of subjects. Canada is responding in many ways. We are leading the world in debt relief proposals. We are increasing Canadian support in the battle against AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and polio. We are doubling our support for Africa over the next three years.
All of those things were in the budget on February 23.
Post-Secondary EducationEd Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
More than 100,000 students in Quebec are now on strike. This is a symptom of the Liberals' failure in education, all over Canada.
In the budget there was not a cent to reduce tuition fees; nothing to reduce student debt, except in the case of death. It is clear the Liberal Party has not kept its word.
Why are the young people of Canada now joining in the chorus of “Promises made, students betrayed?”
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am truly surprised to hear that question from that particular member.
No federal government in history has put more into post-secondary education than this particular one. In this budget alone, $300 million, including the Canada learning bond for low income students; new grants for disabled students in every year of education; the new grant for low income students in first year courses; and a number of other measures.
HousingEd Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is not a student association in Canada, au Québec ou dans les autres provinces, that would agree with that ridiculous statement. Thousands of Canadian students are going into debt every year.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour and Housing. Not only did the government break its commitment to students, but it broke its commitment to thousands of Canadians who are looking for affordable housing.
Why did the government promise $1.5 billion new money for affordable housing and not deliver a penny in the budget?
Joe Fontana: Mr. Speaker, since 1999, the government has invested $1 billion for the homeless and for people who could potentially become homeless. Since 2001, we have committed another $1 billion toward affordable housing.
We have been working diligently with all of the provinces and have, so far, signed with Quebec, B.C., Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. We continue to work with all the provinces on a cost share basis because $700 million are still available in the pipeline for the provinces to house those people who are looking for affordable housing.
ImmigrationMrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to abuse the immigration system to secure political favours. Rather than reducing waiting times, cleaning the system of abuse, corruption and fraud, they are trading ministerial permits for political and electoral support.
Last year the immigration minister gave out over 12,000 ministerial permits.
When will the minister restore transparency, lift the veil of secrecy and tell Canadians how many ministerial permits are issued for every riding and how many at the request of Liberal MPs?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House should automatically reject any accusation and allegation of corruption unless it can be substantiated.
Every year the minister puts a report on the table for Parliament to consider showing where all of these permits came from. That member should know better. It is there for her reading.
As for what we do with respect to these permits, I have already asked the committee to help the Government of Canada determine how some of these things will be applied.
However, let me tell the member that everything is done above board, and the matter to which she refers, all of those--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Newton--North Delta.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, Liberal MPs continue to use the immigration system for political and electoral gain. Even Liberal wannabe MPs are allowed to manipulate the system. Their defeated candidate in Newton--North Delta claims to have been issued at least 11 minister's permits. The immigration minister even credits him with recent tinkering of immigration policy.
Why are the minister's Liberal friends given access to his office and foreign missions for influence peddling and to manipulate immigration and visitor's visa cases?
When will the Liberals stop trading immigration for electoral gains and politicizing the immigration system?
Joe Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I guess if the member had a shred of decency he would feel embarrassed about those kinds of accusations.
The RCMP has already investigated everything and found no substance at all to those kinds of allegations. The member hurts democracy, hurts himself and hurts the community when he repeats false allegations, allegations that have already been dealt with in the justice system.
Please, Mr. Speaker, introduce an element of sanity and decency and tell them to look in the mirror and represent their constituents, because they are not doing it this way.
ForestryMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry promised that his government would respond to B.C.'s request for pine beetle help within a few short weeks.
Now the Minister of Natural Resources says, “Uh, uh, ain't so”. The Liberals want to study the issue a little longer.
The pine beetle issue does not need any more studying. It needs cash.
Why was the Minister of Industry's promise broken and who speaks for the government on the pine beetle issue: the Minister of Industry, who should know the issue, or the Minister of Natural Resources who clearly does not?
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we had an entire evening of an emergency debate to explain to the opposition what we are doing on the mountain pine beetle.
We already have a six year $40 million program on the pine beetle initiative. We have researchers in the west. We have been dealing with this since 1913 and we cover all the federal lands and properties related to the pine beetle.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, of that $40 million, only $5 million got to the ground and most of it went to Liberal friends, such as the candidate who ran against me who received a couple of million dollars.
Three years ago the now Prime Minister, at a Liberal fundraiser in Prince George, said that he would treat the pine beetle epidemic as a national problem and that it was the responsibility of the national government to stand behind the people, the communities and the industries that have been affected. He went on to say, get this, “We won't be strong unless we're strong together”.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to show such utter contempt for the--
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I am interested that the opposition member thinks that the only intellectuals and people who can research are Liberals, because a lot of the money goes to research. It outlines the terms that we need to find out how we can reforest better and how we can use the forests that have been devastated by the pine beetle.
We are working with the provinces on this plan and with the industry in public consultations. It is one of our biggest projects. We have been working on this since 1913, so this is not a new issue.
International AidMr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we observe China's reluctance to recognize human rights, the Minister of International Cooperation announced yesterday that China would be among the 25 to 30 countries targeted by Canada's international aid program.
How can the minister justify such a decision when we all know that China's record on human rights and governance, according to a number of observers, at the very least, leaves—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International Cooperation.
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I am giving aid to the Chinese government.
I have explained again and again that if we want to engage China in a manner that makes China the kind of force in the world we want it to be, we need to provide the kind of programming that assists China to improve its human rights record.
I have made it clear in the House that we do not give aid to the government directly. We give it to Canadian associations, like the Canadian Bar. We are busy engaging China because we want China to experience freedom of speech and not muzzle freedom of speech, like that group is going to do this weekend.
Roger Clavet: Mr. Speaker, while the minister was making her announcement yesterday, the Chinese government was announcing a foreign trade surplus of $5 billion. It is rather surprising that the minister continues to consider China a developing country while its economy skyrockets and it threatens thousands of jobs.
Will the minister acknowledge that if she wants changes in the aid program to make it more productive, there might be better choices of targets for her aid, perhaps in Africa or elsewhere in Asia?
Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, under the new focus and coherence of the Canadian International Development Agency, we will indeed be moving forward to assist countries in Africa and Asia, as the hon. member has mentioned.
One of our key focuses is governance. One of the best things Canada brings to the table is the ability to assist countries like China move forward on human rights, on governance, on a rules based society. That is the way we assist countries like China to create a system whereby they do in fact meet the needs of their people in the same manner that we do it here in Canada.
I do not see the difficulty with--
The Speaker: The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.
TransportPaul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, the government has been aware for some time now about the lack of regional fairness for western ports. Fraser port is the second largest port in Canada, yet it unfairly has to pay for river dredging, as compared to eastern ports.
It is a regional economic issue, but it is also a public safety and flood prevention issue. Both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have been briefed but there is still no action.
When will the government end the economic disparity of Fraser port for Canada's access to the Pacific Rim?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, this question has been with us for a while. We are discussing it with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to try to find a solution.
Effectively this is a question of fairness. I know the arguments have been brought forward. We are trying to find a solution. Maybe there will be the prospect of a solution in the amendment that we are going to bring to the Canada Marine Act that would give much more freedom to the ports of Vancouver and Fraser.
Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, not only is Fraser port a unique situation that requires national treatment, the river dumps tons of sand into Georgia Strait. The river does it naturally, but if a dredger helps it a little, Ottawa taxes it, placing Fraser River Port Authority at a further economic disadvantage.
Will the government stop taxing the river and recognize the foreign trade benefit for the country rather than just a tax benefit for Ottawa?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, indeed we recognize the great potential of B.C. ports. That is where there is such great development these days. The demand is so great. That is why the B.C. caucus is behind the port facilities of B.C. We want to move on those issues to make sure the Pacific gateway gets moving and we get more trade and more activity at the port.
We are all on the same page in that respect. The B.C. caucus is pushing very hard and it will get results.
Status of WomenMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nations across the world have just marked International Women's Day, yet women in every region of the world continue to be oppressed and discriminated against. This past week has given us various examples of this oppression and discrimination. Women are struggling the world over for equality and justice.
I would ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs what action he has taken to demonstrate internationally Canada's commitment to equality and justice for women in every corner of the world.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has indeed built a strong tradition in the promotion and protection of women's rights. These commitments are at the very heart of our foreign policy.
We are working with foreign governments in civil society toward achieving equality and justice through capacity building among other things.
Next week I will be at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. For the 11th year we will bring forward a resolution on the elimination of violence against women, an issue for which we advocate very strongly.
Government AppointmentsMr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have a new meaning for CPP. Apparently it stands for the crony protection plan.
In his new report the President of the Treasury Board has misled taxpayers by further reducing the standards for reappointments to crown corporations. The minister removed a commitment he made to Canadians a year ago that reappointments to crown corporations were to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee.
Is the minister just trying to make it easier for his Liberal cronies to keep their patronage jobs?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it does seem to be foolish Friday.
If the member would take five minutes to read the report to look at all the recommendations that were made, he would see that we put in place the most comprehensive improvement to the governance of crown corporations in 20 years. Parliamentary committees are involved for the first time. They will approve members who are put forward for appointment, or they will examine members who are put forward for appointment.
I am not certain what the member is concerned about.
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister's list of broken promises increased again.
The Prime Minister promised to make government appointments more transparent. However, this week the Commons environment committee rejected former Liberal candidate Glen Murray as the head of an advisory board.
I am concerned that this decision will be simply ignored, much as previous votes in the House have been ignored.
My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister honour the decision of the committee and simply reject Mr. Murray's appointment?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surely my colleague is not speaking of this very qualified Canadian who was a city councillor for eight years and the mayor of Winnipeg. He was the chair of the big city mayors caucus and has been an important part of the new deal for cities which led to more urban transit. He has been an active member of the International Conference of Mayors and a leader of the Creative Cities Movement. He created the green plan for the city of Winnipeg and the green pricing for Winnipeg procurement.
Surely it is not this individual about whom the member is speaking.
Air TransportationMrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that Jetsgo has ceased operations. This means 1,200 jobs are threatened, and thousands of ticket holders may lose their money.
What does the government intend to do to help these ticket holders faced with losing their money and the employees faced with losing their jobs?
Jean Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have always known that the Bloc was slow, but for the hon. member to have just heard— Jetsgo made the announcement at midnight, last night that it was ceasing operations. The company also requested a court hearing today to to seek protection under the law.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Jean Lapierre: In the meantime, for those more interested in the passengers than in heckling, I will tell the hon. member that alternatives are now being offered to them by other companies, including Air Canada, WestJet, CanJet and VIA Rail. All the companies have pulled together to lend a hand. I am told that the number of aircraft has been increased, as well as—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
Emergency PreparednessDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In light of the tragic Indian Ocean tsunami not that long ago, Canadians are very aware of the need for vigilance in monitoring this kind of natural disaster.
What is the government doing for the development of an east coast tsunami monitoring system?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, building on our successful Pacific coast experience, we are working with our international partners, especially the U.S., to develop an east coast tsunami warning system for North America. We are also working with our counterparts in Europe.
Preliminary work is already under way. We are working to get this in place as quickly as possible.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsLarry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I am honoured to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 67 petitions.
Canada Grain ActAndy Mitchell: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the HouseNancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development regarding the slaughtering of Inuit sled dogs in the north between 1950 and 1970.
I want to thank my clerk and research staff for their great support.
Homeowners' Freedom from Double Taxation ActMr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of property taxes paid in respect of a principal residence).

Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to introduce my private member's bill again. In 11 years my name has never been drawn, but I hope that one of these times we will actually get to debate the bill and vote on it.
This bill is a very important one. Businesses can deduct from their taxable incomes the rental or ownership costs of their buildings. Certainly people who rent places can because it is reflected in the costs that their landowners can use for their tax purposes. Homeowners cannot and my bill would simply make an item deductible if they had taxes that were paid to municipalities or provinces. It would be a deduction from their federal income tax and hence their provincial income tax as well.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Employment Insurance ActKen Epp: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-346, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (elimination of waiting period and repayment of premiums).

Mr. Speaker, a problem way back in the late 1950s and early 1960s when I was a student was that I had to pay unemployment insurance premiums. I could not collect it, but I still had to pay the premiums.
Students nowadays still have that problem. They are forced to pay employment insurance premiums yet they cannot possibly collect EI because they are not available for employment. This bill would allow the students and their employers to get their premiums back. This taking of money from poor students is unwarranted.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Evidence ActKen Epp: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (interpretation of numerical dates).

Mr. Speaker, are we ever confused. I have actually had a bill where the dates have been indicated two different ways. What does it mean when we see 05-04-06? Is it April 6, 2005? Is it June 4, 2005? Is it May 4, 2006? Is it April 5, 2006?
My bill would clarify that. It would provide that unless specifically stated, it would be year, month, day, which is what Canada signed on to about 30 years ago.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Questions on the Order PaperLarry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Oceans Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Jean Lapierre: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)
Jean Lapierre: 
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I am please to have the opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill S-17, the 2004 tax conventions implementation bill.
The proposed legislation contained in the bill will put into force four new tax treaties that Canada has already signed with Gabon, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan. It also implements a new tax treaty with Ireland, replacing an older treaty that is already in effect.
I would like to emphasize that the treaties contained in Bill S-17 are not controversial. In fact, the bill's proposed legislation is standard and routine.
Indeed, these treaties, similar to the ones that Canada has with other countries, are patterned on the OECD model tax convention which is utilized by all member countries. Moreover, the provisions in the treaties contained in Bill S-17 comply fully with the international standards that apply to such treaties.
Canada already has tax treaties in place with 83 countries. With passage of Bill S-17, that will increase to 87 countries. In the last three years alone Canada has signed treaties or amended protocols with 14 countries.
In an ever increasing and competitive global marketplace, these treaties are important for Canada to compete internationally. Tax treaties benefit Canada's international trade in goods and services and in doing so, have a direct impact on our domestic economic performance.
That impact is very significant. Over 40% of Canada's annual gross domestic product can be attributed to exports. Moreover, Canada's economic well-being depends on regular foreign investment as well as the influx of information, capital and technology.
By eliminating tax impediments and by creating more predictable tax results for Canadian traders, investors and other taxpayers with foreign source income, our tax treaties promote opportunities in international trade and investment at home and abroad. In this regard, tax treaties combined contained in Bill S-17 are no exception. These are crucial considerations in today's global economy.
The promotion of trade and investment stimulates the growth of Canada's economy. This in turn allows us to pursue the social objectives that have made our country one of the best places in the world to live.
I would like to take a moment now to comment generally on how this legislation supports the promotion of international trade through a fair and competitive tax system.
The importance of making the tax system more competitive has been underscored in recent years by reductions in the corporate tax rates in many of our major trading partners.
Given the mobility of investment capital globally, a competitive tax system is critical to fostering business investment in Canada. Investment supports economic growth and job creation. With more and better equipment embodying the latest technology, workers are more productive.
Increased investment and higher labour productivity in turn leads to increased employment, higher wages and a higher standard of living. Tax treaties are also an integral part of tax fairness initiatives introduced by the government's efforts to make the system fairer.
I would like to expand on that point by outlining two tax fairness objectives that are kept in mind in the design of tax treaties such as the ones before us today. The two objectives are: first, to prevent double taxation; and second, to prevent tax evasion and avoidance.
First, what is double taxation? Double taxation occurs when a taxpayer lives in one country and earns income in another country. If there were no tax treaty in place to allocate the taxing rights and to provide various mechanisms to grant relief where both countries retain the right to tax certain items of income for that individual, income is at risk of being taxed in both jurisdictions. This situation would produce unfair results and have adverse economic impacts on Canada.
It is only natural that investors, traders and other international dealers want to know how they will be taxed before they commit to doing business in any given country.
Tax treaties establish a mutual understanding of how the tax regime of one country will interrelate with that of another, thus helping remove the uncertainty about the tax implications associated with doing business, working or otherwise earning income from abroad. Preventing double taxation is accomplished by first defining the rules for establishing jurisdiction for tax purposes between the country where the taxpayer resides and the country where the income arises.
Another method of reducing the possibility of taxation involves the reduction of withholding taxes. These are the taxes countries generally impose on certain types of income paid to non-residents. For example, without a tax treaty or various other legislative exemptions Canada taxes various categories of income paid to non-residents at a rate of 25%. Most of our trading partners impose a withholding tax at a similar level to that of Canada.
A problem arises because withholding taxes does not provide for the deductibility of expenses incurred in generating that income. This is because the tax is imposed on the gross, not the net amount. A situation therefore occurs where the taxpayer is subject to an effective tax rate that is significantly higher than would be applicable to net income in either the source or the resident country. To resolve this situation, Canada's network of international tax treaties provides reciprocal withholding tax rate reductions for a number of types of income such as dividends, interests and royalties.
Let us go to the second objective of the tax treaties with many countries around the world. The second objective is to prevent tax avoidance and evasion. Canadians who pay their fair share of taxes would not want corporations or people to avoid or evade taxes simply by doing business internationally.
The hon. members can no doubt appreciate the negative effect caused by loss of revenue from tax avoidance and evasion. This is not only clearly unfair but potentially damaging economically. Moreover, the resulting revenue loss can adversely affect the government's ability to support a broad range of federal programs that benefit all Canadians, including health, support to the elderly, support to the disabled and money for education. Ultimately, tax avoidance and evasion also places an unfair tax burden on honest taxpayers. This runs contrary to the Canadian concept of a fair and equitable tax system.
Treaties like the ones contained in Bill S-17 allow for improved and expanded mechanisms for international cooperation and information sharing. This exchange of information between revenue authorities helps governments to identify cases of tax avoidance and evasion and take the actions necessary to recover the lost revenue.
To sum up, tax treaties open the door for international cooperation which in turn provide a mechanism for improving tax fairness by combatting tax avoidance and evasion. Treaties covered in Bill S-17 also address a number of other important issues for the consideration of hon. members.
For one, each treaty contains provisions to ensure that cross-border investors do not suffer discrimination based on nationality. Also, each treaty contained in the bill has provisions that limit the potential for double taxation arising from the application of Canada's taxpayer migration rules.
As I mentioned at the outset, Bill S-17 is not controversial. Rather, it is routine legislation with clear benefits to all Canadians.
Following on the government's approach to tax fairness, these treaties will provide fair and equitable solutions to the taxation problems that currently exist between Canada and the five countries named in this bill. I therefore ask that all hon. members pass this bill quickly.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can see where this crowded House today is going to be involved in a very vigorous debate on this exciting subject as the parliamentary secretary just indicated. This being Friday, I cannot help having a little fun with that individual.
The purpose of having tax treaties with other countries is to avoid double taxation, and that is totally legitimate and defensible, and we support that. People who earn income in another country should not have to pay income tax both there and here. If both countries have income tax rates like ours, where we have the federal tax and the provincial tax, people would end up with maybe 10% of their income, the rest having gone toward taxes. It is important to have these treaties.
I wonder if we could get a tax treaty with Canada. I know that sounds a little bizarre. Canada engages in double taxation and it is time that we put an end to it. For example, there is a provincial tax and a federal excise tax on gasoline. After the cost of the product and tax a and tax b are added up, GST is added on top of all that. That is double taxation. GST is paid on the provincial tax and GST is paid on the federal excise tax. Taxes are being paid on taxes.
Another example is the private member's bill which I just talked about concerning house taxes. For example, if I had a tax bill for my house of $2,400, I would have to earn $4,000 in order to pay it. If we do the math, $4,000 less 40% leaves me with $2,400. That would pay my property tax. That is double taxation. Could we not get a treaty going with Canada to avoid double taxation? Would that not be a neat idea?
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's great participation in the House. He is here a stellar number of times, but in being here a stellar number of times, he should know the rule that we do not indirectly refer to a member's participation in the House. I hope when he puts his next question to me, he will apologize for his first comment.
He is suggesting there is double taxation when Canadians have to pay both a federal tax and a provincial tax. I do not know how we would pay for health care and education if there were no provincial tax. We need taxes to do that. I do not know how we would pay for the increase in defence that the opposition wants, or the increase in agriculture that the opposition wants, or all the things that Her Majesty's loyal opposition asks us to pay for every day, if there were no federal tax.
We can talk about tax on tax on top of tax and all of the ramifications, but the bottom line is that a certain amount of tax is needed to run the country. We could change the structure of the tax system to deal with some of the points the member made, but we still need to end up with the same number of taxes.
We could change income taxes, but the member's party is constantly suggesting that we should not increase income taxes. However, we would have to do that if we were to act on his suggestion of changing the tax structure.
The member may have a philosophically correct point about restructuring, but the bottom line is going to be the same. Canadians have to pay the same amount of taxes to pay for their schools, to pay for their hospitals, and to pay for national defence. They will have to pay the same amount of taxes to support the elderly, to support the disabled, to support farmers, and all the things Canadians want. There are various orders of government to pay for it.
Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the member missed my point. We are asking Canadians to pay taxes on money that they have earned for the sole purpose of paying taxes, or in some cases, they are asked to pay taxes on money that is already taxed. That was the point that I was making. Indeed, it was facetious to a degree because we are talking about double taxation with other countries.
However, I would like to still emphasize the fact that we need to reduce the rates of taxation. I would like to give the member a quick lesson in economics. I do not know whether he has ever heard of the Laffer curve, but the fact is that in many instances if the tax rates are reduced, tax revenues are actually increased. In other words, governments would have more money for programs because there would be more economic activity. Money would be left in the hands of individuals, citizens, taxpayers, entrepreneurs and business people who drive the economy.
Just because the tax rate is reduced does not mean that there will be less money for the government. There most likely will be more, provided it is carefully planned. That is what we are advocating in this party, not reducing those valued government programs as he contends incorrectly. We want to ensure that the money is spent wisely, not foolishly, not in criminal ways as is being investigated now but rather in rational ways. We should provide programs we want with a tax structure that is fair and that is a great driving force to our economy rather than a damper on it.
Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer this question again.
I was fascinated at the extrapolation of the curve the member is talking about, that we reduce taxes and have more money for education, health and these things. I am sure the NDP would not agree with such an analysis. What happens when we reduce the taxes to zero? Are we going to have more money for education, health, the elderly, the infirm and affordable housing?
I do not think it necessarily works that way, but I am glad he brought up the point that we should have tax reductions because it does indeed lead to us being competitive in an internationally competitive world, so that we can actually have more workers employed in Canada and not close factories.
As members know, over the last five years the Canadian government has instituted the largest tax cut in Canadian history of $100 billion. I am curious as to why that was not in the opposition's platform. But even on top of that $100 billion, in this particular budget we have decreased taxes again to make Canadian industry more competitive, so we can keep our workers employed. A lot of those taxes would go to low income people, so that ultimately 850,000 people will no longer be paying any taxes in Canada.
We are very proud of that record and very proud that we have been able to control expenditures sufficiently, so that we can offer these large tax decreases that keeps Canada competitive. It keeps our workers employed and it keeps a high standard of living, so that Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world in which to live.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the third reading and report stage debate on Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2004.
This bill implements income tax treaties with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Gabon and Oman. Canadian did not previously have tax treaties with any of these states. It also ratifies a new treaty with Ireland. These treaties set out a framework for taxation on investment income flowing between Canada and other countries. They provide mechanisms to avoid double taxation and prevent any kind of tax evasion.
Let us look into the background. Over the past several years, Canada has negotiated tax treaties with 83 countries. These agreements deal with problems that arise when residents of one nation earn income in another country. They are based on the model double taxation convention prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Treaties serve to avoid double taxation in situations in which a taxpayer could be taxed twice, once by the country in which the income arises, the source country, and once by the country where the taxpayer resides, the residence country. The treaties help to reduce excessive withholding taxes on certain types of income, such as investment income and royalties.
Treaties also serve to establish agreed-to levels of activities in which taxpayers can engage in the treaty country before becoming subject to taxation. Treaties must provide for the exchange of information and also to eliminate taxes in situations where treaty partners agree should have favourable tax treatment. Tax treaties cannot take effect unless Parliament assesses and passes legislation to give them precedence over the Income Tax Act.
Legislation to ratify tax treaties does not require a notice of ways and means and, therefore, may be introduced in the Senate, as was the case with this bill.
One of the important elements that we should look at before signing any kind of treaty with any country is respect for Canadian values among which the respect for human rights is paramount. While tax treaties are generally beneficial to Canadians, I am somewhat concerned about the four countries involved in the treaties this bill would ratify.
Specifically, I am concerned about the human rights records of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Gabon and Oman. I have visited some of these countries already and I have firsthand experience in some of these situations. Canada must ensure that the countries we have tax treaties with recognize the importance of human rights. It must be more than a perfunctory recognition. It must be a real and cognizant recognition.
The U.S. state department's 2004 human rights report released just two weeks ago gives all four of the countries we are agreeing to have tax treaties with failing grades. According to the report, the Armenian government's human rights record remains very poor as its security forces beat pre-trial detainees and its impugnity remains a problem. As well, there were instances of arbitrary arrest and detentions.
For Azerbaijan, the government's human rights record also remains poor, and it continues to commit numerous abuses, including: restricting the right of citizens to peacefully change their government democratically; police torture and beat persons in custody; and use excessive force to extract confessions. The government continues to restrict freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.
According to the same report, the Government of Oman also has serious human rights problems. Citizens do not have the right to change their government democratically. The government restricts freedom of speech and freedom of the press, assembly and religion. Despite legislated equality, discrimination against women remains a problem and foreign workers in private firms have been placed in situations amounting to forced labour.
Finally, according to the report, the Gabon is given a poor grade, as the government continues to limit the ability of citizens to change their government democratically, security forces sometimes beat and torture prisoners and detainees, and arbitrary arrests and detentions are ongoing problems. The government also continues to restrict freedom of the press and movement. Violence and social discrimination against women and non-citizen Africans continue to be problems. Forced labour, child labour and trafficking, particularly in children, also remain serious problems.
In general, none of these countries share Canada's respect for human rights. Canadians have a right to ask what their government is doing to ensure that the human rights record of the foreign signatory is improved. I remember when we as parliamentarians travelled to other countries, along with ministers and others, we always emphasized the Canadian values that we respect: the protection of human rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but how would we sign those agreements or treaties when the records of those countries are not as good?
While the government has been making progress on signing new tax treaties, it has failed miserably at renegotiating previous treaties that have a far greater impact on the welfare of Canadians.
A case in point is our tax treaty with the United States. Five years ago the Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, reached an agreement in principle with his U.S. counterparts. Since then little has happened, with the last meeting occurring in 2001, despite the Prime Minister claiming that the agreement was of great consequence to Canadians. The people of Canada want the dithering to stop.
Last summer, when Japan and the U.S. reached an agreement to renegotiate their tax treaty, the U.S. ambassador to Japan praised the treaty as “one more symbol of the cooperation, trust and true friendship that exists between our two countries”. If that is what it takes to get a tax treaty done, it is little wonder the Liberals have failed to secure a deal.
Under the last Liberal prime minister, relations with the U.S. reached an all time low and they are getting no better under the current resident of 24 Sussex Drive. The bungling of the missile defence system, the closure of the border to Canadian beef and the never-ending softwood lumber dispute are evidence of where our relationship stands with our closest neighbour and largest trading partner.
Eight-seven per cent of our trade is with the United States and the bottleneck in our relationship continues to exist. It is detrimental to Canadians in general as well as our businesses. If the U.S. president waits for 10 days to return our Prime Minister's phone call, there is obviously little hope of getting a tax treaty done.
It is also important for the federal government to finally renegotiate our tax treaties for the countries that serve as tax havens for Canadian companies. Canadians will recall how the Prime Minister took advantage of our agreement with the Bahamas, registering his shipping fleet there and saving millions of dollars in Canadian taxes.
The country's five largest banks are now getting in on the action, probably following the Prime Minister's example, and saving billions of dollars in taxes. According to one report, CIBC alone in 2003 saved $600 million in Canadian taxes by using tax havens. This is money that we could have used for health care, education, tax cuts and many other things.
The Liberals, however, do not have the political will nor the backbone to close these loopholes in tax treaties and these tax havens.
Thanks to our former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who visited one of the world's most repressive countries to secure an agreement with the Turkmenistan government for rights to explore the disputed Serdar oil field in the Caspian Sea, our discussion of the tax treaty with Azerbaijan is almost pointless. In protest of the deal negotiated by Chrétien, the Azeri national assembly has refused to pass a law ratifying our tax treaty agreed to last September.
The former prime minister may be officially retired from politics but he certainly is not done making headlines and harming Canadian interests abroad, whether it is his attempt to stop the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship fiasco or, in this case, harming our relations with foreign states.
The Conservative Party of Canada supports the negotiation of tax treaties with foreign states. Such treaties are in the best interest of the Canadian people. They eliminate the double taxation, because, heaven knows, Canadians already pay enough in taxes, and promote investment and growth.
However I am concerned about the human rights records of some of the countries with which we are forming agreements. We should not allow economics to cloud our judgment of what is right and what is wrong and all four of these countries have been found to have a poor respect for the rights of their people.
Sometimes the Liberal government has given precedence to trade over anything else to some countries with dismal human rights records. The Liberals have been completely ignoring human rights record in favour of promoting trade and giving preferential treatment to those states.
Canadian interests may be best served if the government makes a priority of finally concluding renegotiations of our tax treaty with the United States which have dragged on for five years despite the Prime Minister's acknowledgement in 2000 that this deal was of great importance to Canada.
I think we should look closer to home. We should look at our volume of trade with our neighbouring country. I think the treaty with the U.S. should have been given precedence over any other treaty. If the Prime Minister himself confessed in 2000 that this would have serious consequence for Canadians, where is that treaty, I ask the Liberals across the floor? Where is that treaty with the United States which the Prime Minister, when he was finance minister in 2000, said would have a serious consequence for Canadians? Five years have passed. Where is the progress? Why has the government been sitting on its hands? Why is the government sleeping at the wheel and not signing the treaty with our largest trading partner, the United States of America?
The government has for far too long put off renegotiations on tax treaties that serve as tax havens for Canadian companies. Why is the government not closing those loopholes? It might be because they serve its self-interest in one way or the other.
The federal treasury cannot afford this kind of dithering. The government must stop dithering and act swiftly on the issues that are of particular importance to Canadians and to our relationship with our largest trading partner.
I will be voting in support of the bill but I would ask the government to wake up and not sleep at the wheel.
Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the tax treaties with Oman, Gabon, Armenia and so on, and I know of his interest in human rights and his experience with some of those countries.
I would like his thoughts with respect to treaties of this type, which have sort of a chicken and egg element to them, in that if we do not have reasonable tax relations and do not establish reasonable contact with those types of countries, then it makes it difficult for our people going there or their people coming here to be fairly treated and it makes it difficult to move on the human rights front, which is of interest to my colleague.
I would suggest that avoiding double taxation in this way, even with those types of countries, would be advantageous in our efforts toward improving the human rights records of the countries concerned.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from, particularly on human rights records, which is important to all of us when we deal with a foreign state. However the job of the foreign ministry is to strengthen relationships and sell Canadian values when we go abroad. The diplomats and department officials and bureaucrats should not tell us that we should not raise the issue of human rights when we meet with foreign nationals.
I can remember my personal experience when I was in Tibet and I was told not to raise certain issues with the foreign minister who attended our meeting. I did not care what they were telling me. I raised the issue and I was told that I was one of the first Canadian politicians to raise the human rights issue with the Chinese government.
I then told Chinese officials point blank that I would like to visit their labour camps. I was the first foreign national to visit a labour camp in Tibet. I understand that we have to do our job but we should stand for Canadian values when we go abroad. Human rights are important to all Canadians and when we can talk about them, we should talk about them and we should take a strong stand.
On the other hand, the government's record is weak and it continues to be weak in closing the tax loopholes and tax havens. In fact, it is moving in the other direction. The five major banks are now trying to take advantage. I am sure that hundreds and thousands of other businesses will follow suit if the government does not close those loopholes and tax havens.
Those tax dollars could be spent for Canadian purposes. We know health care is in shambles and students are suffering from a lack of quality education. The money could be used for infrastructure development in our constituencies. Surrey Memorial Hospital and the Delta Hospital in my constituency both need money. They have a shortage of beds, doctors, nurses and medicines. We need tax dollars to be spent in Canada not siphoned out of Canada to tax havens.
I want to make a final comment with respect to our relationship with the United States. Our government has been dithering for five years on signing a tax treaty with the United States. In contrast, the Liberal members, one after the other, stand and make inflammatory and anti-U.S. comments and the Prime Minister does nothing to stop them.
Members of the opposition have raised those issues from time to time but the Liberal government continues to tolerate them, even keeping parliamentary secretaries as well as other members in their positions. Those members should be fired from their positions, which would send a strong message to our American friends that we will not tolerate any kind of nonsense from any member who goes against our American trading partners and our friends and neighbours.
We talk about signing treaties with Americans but the government's actions have been in the opposite direction so far. I would like the Liberals to get their act together.

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseHon. 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, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you were to seek it, I think that you would find unanimous consent for the following motions regarding committee travel. First, I move:

That, notwithstanding the orders made on Tuesday, February 8, 2005, in relation to its study on the Canadian feature film industry, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be authorized to travel to Winnipeg from April 3 to 4, 2005; to Toronto from April 5 to 8, 2005; to Montreal from April 19 to 22, 2005; to Vancouver from May 3 to 5, 2005; to Halifax from May 17 to 19, 2005, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, second, I move:

That, notwithstanding the orders made on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 concerning travel to Victoria and Winnipeg in relation to its study on fiscal imbalance, 5 members of the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance of the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to travel to Victoria on April 3 and 4, 2005, and to Winnipeg on April 17 and 18, 2005, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, third, I move:

That, in relation to its study on the government action plan on official languages, the Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to travel to Bathurst, the Eastern Townships, Toronto, Windsor, Whitehorse, Vancouver, St. Boniface and Sudbury in April 2005, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)
[Stage Direction]
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 third time and passed.
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska. The purpose of the bill before us is to implement tax conventions with a number of countries.
Of course, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. That having been said, we support tax treaties that are concluded with countries whose tax system is comparable to ours, without being necessarily similar. As we know, societies' visions are not necessarily the same. Take the example of our American neighbours. They are not very strong on taxing, but then they are not very strong on public services either. This means that a whole segment of the American population does not have access to health care and to a number of other services which we, in Quebec and in Canada, view as services that should be provided to the public.
Other countries tax a great deal more than Canada. In fact, overall, Canada ranks in the middle of the pack, currently, in terms of taxation in OECD countries. Consequently, half of these countries have higher taxes than we do, probably because they provide more public services and greater social protection than we do. Half of them have lower taxes, probably because they have decided to provide fewer services to their citizens.
I talked about “comparable taxation” because unfortunately I heard some Liberal members trying to imply that the Bloc Québécois was demanding that all countries, including developing countries, adopt the same taxation rate as ours. This is simply not true.
However, we agree with the principle of having tax treaties to avoid double taxation. As I mentioned, we want to avoid the double taxation of Canadian citizens, be they corporate citizens or individuals, because if they pay taxes in another jurisdiction, it is quite normal for Canada, in calculating their taxes, to take that into consideration. In this respect, there is no problem. I think that most of the countries identified in Bill S-17 comply with this approach.
This means, when countries have insignificant, unreasonable or negligible taxation—I am thinking for example of Barbados, but also of tax havens in general—a tax treaty makes no sense because our goal is to avoid double taxation. If there is no taxation in the other jurisdiction, earnings, be they profits or dividends or even income not subject to tax in that jurisdiction, must be subject to full taxation in Canada.
For this reason, the Bloc Québécois is taking advantage of this debate on Bill S-17 to reiterate our opposition to the tax treaty signed with Barbados. As the House is aware, this is the only place in the world considered a tax haven with which Canada has signed a tax treaty. Canada has not signed such a treaty with Liberia, Bermuda or any place else.
Barbados is a tax haven in that it meets all the criteria set out in the OECD definition of a tax haven. I will read the House an excerpt from the 1998 report:

These territories and countries offer the foreign investor an environment with no or only nominal taxation, which is usually coupled with a reduction in regulatory or administrative constraints. The activity is usually not subject to information exchange because, for example, of strict bank secrecy provisions. [...] these jurisdictions are generally known as tax havens.

The Barbados fits the OECD definition perfectly. I know what the government will say, that the Barbados was not on the most recent OECD list of tax havens. In 1998, it was on the list. The Barbados had been identified as a tax haven by the OECD.
In 2001, in the subsequent report, the Barbados was dropped for essentially two reasons. The OECD found that this tax haven was cooperating with international financial authorities in terms of bank secrecy. Since then, nothing has really been done to make the banking and taxation system in the Barbados more transparent.
The second reason is that Canada and the United States have pressured the OECD to drop the Barbados from the list of tax havens. Nonetheless, when we refer to the 1998 definition, we cannot deny that the Barbados is a tax haven.
I will come back to this, but I want to touch on the fact that even the Auditor General—and it was a male Auditor General at the time—in his February 27, 2001, report identified tax havens as a very serious problem for the Canadian tax base, and I quote:

One of the biggest threats to the tax base lies in the international activities of Canadian taxpayers, particularly the use of tax havens.

That was in the 2001 report. Nothing has been done since, so that for foreign investments by Canadians in other countries Barbados has become the third ranking destination for Canadian investors. It is rather amazing that a small island with a population of 270,000 could attract $23.340 billion in Canadian investments in 2001, for example. That certainly creates a lot of investment amount per capita.
Over the years, Barbados have become Canada's tax haven. This makes it easier to understand why the Canadian government pressured the OECD to get it taken off the list of tax havens.
As I was saying, it is absolutely amazing that $23 billion in investments could go to a tiny island with a population of 270,000, but it is even more amazing that Barbados has become, as I also said, the third-ranking destination for Canadian investment dollars, after the U.S. of course, and Great Britain.
So there is more Canadian investment in Barbados than in Mexico, for example, where the figure is $4 billion; Japan: $6.4 billion, or France, $3.3390 billion. It does not take a genius to figure it out. It is simply that the tax convention with Barbados has encouraged individuals and corporations to make use of the mechanism made available to them in order to avoid their collective responsibility, that is to pay taxes in Canada.
For instance, Canada's five largest banks alone admitted in 2002 to having saved $10 billion over the years in Canadian taxes through tax havens such as Barbados in particular.
This is a well known fact. The Bloc Québécois, through the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and myself when I was the finance critic, has been raising the issue since 1994. We have put forward motions in the House. These motions were supported by all opposition parties. Only the Liberals have objected to tightening the rules, especially in the case of Barbados, to prevent tax avoidance and close up these loopholes.
Why? Because the government is hiding behind appearances and denying the facts. We will hear that the tax rate in Barbados is approximately 40%. That is window dressing. International business corporations actually pay between 1.5% and 2.5% in tax. Not only did the Canadian government arrange its tax law to allow for this but it also made special arrangements to ensure that Canadian businesses would not be subject to Canadian taxation.
We are confronted with this totally objectionable situation where the current Prime Minister was the owner of a company—now owned by his sons, as hon. members know—which took advantage of this tax loophole. We believe that, over the past five years, this loophole has saved CSL International approximately $103 million in taxes, at the expense of all middle-class taxpayers and the social protections that could have been put in place both federally and provincially. That is totally unacceptable.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Joliette on his excellent presentation. I have had the honour of working with him in recent years, in his capacity as the Bloc Québécois critic on finance. I can say that he has probably become—in spite of himself—an expert on tax havens. Still, unlike some other members of this House, he has never used them for tax evasion purposes.
As my colleague states, we are in complete agreement with 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.
In fact, we are in favour of tax conventions with countries which have taxation systems similar to Canada's and Quebec's. That is the case with the conventions covered by Bill S-17.
But the same income must not be taxed twice, once when it is earned and a second time in the taxpayer's country of residence. That is only natural. Many tax conventions signed by Canada respect this principle.
The problems arise when Canada signs a tax convention with a tax haven. At that time, the tax convention makes it possible to avoid taxation entirely, and that is tax evasion. Believe it or not, Canada has signed such an agreement with Barbados, a recognized tax haven. As my colleague said, it has only 272,000 inhabitants but has become the third most popular destination for Canadian capital, behind the United States and Great Britain. This is no surprise when one sees the tax rates applied in Barbados.
In 1994, financial transfers from Canada to Barbados totalled $5 billion, a hefty sum. Less than 10 years later, in 2002, this amount stood at nearly $24 billion. That is nothing short of a 369% increase. The previous Auditor General, always ready to sniff out something fishy, and his successor both quite rightly denounced the danger tax havens pose to the Canadian tax base. Let us can take a closer look at this.
In 1992, the Auditor General brought the problem of tax havens to public attention for the first time.
A few years later, in 1996, the Auditor General raised the alarm again, stating this time that the results of Revenue Canada's program to combat it indicate that avoidance continues to pose a serious threat to the tax base.
The current Prime Minister, who was the finance minister back in 1996, responded to the report by saying, “the government is proposing to implement those recommendations swiftly and fully”. That was 1996, almost 10 years ago. The Liberal government has not acted on anything in that Auditor General's report.
In 1998, the Auditor General expressed concern for the third time about the growing use of tax havens and increasing number of bilateral income tax conventions. His report reads, and I quote:

—failure to take urgent action on these matters will severely limit Revenue Canada's ability to manage the risks to Canada's tax base that international transactions represent.

In 2001, the Auditor General raised for the fourth time the issue of tax havens. In his report of February 2001, he wrote, and I quote:

One of the biggest threats to the tax base lies in the international activities of Canadian taxpayers, particularly the use of tax havens.

Finally, the issue of tax havens was raised, for the fifth time, by the current Auditor General, who wrote in her December 2002 report:

Although Canada amended its rules in 1995, little has changed. Tax havens continue to attract Canadian money. For example, Statistics Canada reports that Canadian direct investment in Barbados has increased from $628 million in 1988 to $23.3 billion in 2001—over a 3,600 percent increase... Information provided to us by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency shows that in 2000, Canadian corporations received $1.5 billion in dividends from corporations in Barbados.

Another very instructive chronology demonstrates Canada's lack of action and this government's lack of ethics. Let us go back 1992 this time.
My colleague referred to Canada Steamship Lines, which then created CSL International. This is an empty shell that was incorporated in Liberia to take charge, on paper, of all CSL's international operations. CSL International does very little shipping. It is a holding company that owns businesses that do engage in shipping. At the time, it was possible to bring into Canada, tax-free, the profits generated by the Liberian subsidiary of a Canadian company.
In 1994, the current Prime Minister and then finance minister tabled his first budget. The date was February 22, 1994. At the time, he said he wanted to put an end to the use of tax havens, because some Canadian corporations were not paying enough taxes. Therefore, at the time, he wanted to take measures to prevent Canadian based corporations from using foreign affiliates to avoid paying taxes in Canada.
However, the budget implementation bill and the regulations that came into effect in 1995 left one loophole available: Barbados. So, in January 1995, CSL International moved to Barbados. On February 1, 2003, Pierre Préfontaine, the first vice-president of CSL International, confirmed to the CBC that the move had been motivated by the changes made to Canada's taxation rules.
In 1996, far from seeking means to stem the exodus of capital to Barbados by denouncing the convention with that tax haven, Canada encouraged the situation by signing a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Barbados on May 29, 1996. In 1996, while he was finance minister, the present Prime Minister introduced Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill proposing more flexible tax treatment for, oddly enough, international shipping companies. That bill died on the order paper when the election was called.
In 1998, the then finance minister and now PM, not having given up, introduced budget implementation Bill C-28, one of the clauses of which addressed shipping.
Raynald Blais: Just by chance.
André Bellavance: Yes, just by chance, as my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine says.
Since then, a foreign-incorporated holding company owning businesses engaged in international shipping is considered to be involved in shipping itself. It is therefore exempt from Canadian taxes, even if its profits are brought into the country. The provision is retroactive, again just by chance, to 1995, the year in which CSL International moved to Barbados.
The bill affects only a limited number of taxpayers. In fact, the Canadian Shipowners Association has only 11 members including eight active in international shipping, among them CSL International.
In 2000, a group of 13 countries, including Canada, proposed loosening the OECD regulations on tax havens. Since then, the correct term is no longer “tax havens” but “uncooperative tax havens”. This measure reduced to 11 from 35 the number of countries on the list of countries with which the OECD recommends not concluding tax treaties. In 2001, the same group of 13 countries, still including Canada, proposed even more flexibility in the OECD rules. As of that date, a country only needed to agree to share tax information in order to be considered cooperative. In 2002, the black list shrank from 11 to 7, and to 6 in 2003. Barbados is no longer on the OECD black list. It remains, just as my colleague from Joliette has said, a tax haven nonetheless.
In 2002, the government introduced Bill S-2, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act. Far from denouncing the 1980 tax convention between Canada and Barbados, Bill S-2 simply renewed it by amending its schedules.
To illustrate how to avoid paying taxes in Canada, let us take a random example. I will take Canada Steamship Lines, as a random example.
Its subsidiary in Barbados, Canada Steamship Lines International, may be nothing more than an empty shell, as I said earlier, that can declare exorbitant profits. The tax rate in Barbados is ridiculously low, between 1% and 2.5%. On average the tax rate is somewhere around 1.12%. Once these few taxes are paid, the parent company, a Canadian company, can bring these profits back to Canada and be completely exempt from paying taxes in Canada since the tax conventions prohibit double taxation.
As my colleague from Joliette said so well a few moments ago, this is a matter of roughly $103 million that could have gone to public services such as health and education, among other things, for the people of Quebec and Canada. It is just another scandal.
I will conclude by saying that it would be very easy for the government to shut down the Barbados loophole. It would simply have to abolish, by order, section 5907(11.2)( c ) of the Income Tax Regulations. Income brought back to Canada by Canadian companies with subsidiaries in Barbados would be taxable in Canada, at the applicable rate in Canada, less the amount of tax paid in Barbados.
This simple measure would generate at least $350 million in additional income for the federal government. It is a constructive solution. It is up to the government to act.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I too am looking forward to this opportunity to debate Bill S-17 brought forward via the Senate. I should mention first that the NDP as a matter of principle and a matter of policy resents and objects to bills that come to the House of Commons through the unelected second chamber, the other place. Let me make that point right off the bat.
I am looking forward to speaking to Bill S-17 for two reasons. First, I will speak to the fact that we recognize this has merits and it is seeking to be a reasonable initiative to enter into expanded tax treaties with countries so we can avoid the issue of double taxation. We welcome that. We recognize the need. It increases the number of tax treaties of that nature to 87, I believe. The nation of Canada is in relations with 87 other places in that regard.
Second, it also gives us the important opportunity to address the larger issue, we believe, the lost opportunity involved with tax avoidance, tax evasion and what we in our party call tax fugitives.
We condemn in the strongest possible terms the economic treason associated with those Canadian companies that knowingly and willingly undermine our tax base by avoiding taxes, by taking advantage of the tax havens and the tax loopholes that exist. Very real opportunities exist for Canadian companies that have the will and the ruthlessness, I would say, to undermine the integrity of our Canadian tax system through tax avoidance.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal in the context of the tax havens that we allow in this country. We are not calling anybody a criminal here. We are questioning their ethics and their morality, perhaps, for what is in known in chartered accountants' circles and tax accountants' circles as “tax motivated expatriation”. They call it tax motivated expatriation because it has a nicer ring to it than “sleazy tax-cheating loopholes”, which is what I call it when these companies take advantage of the tax system to locate offshore for the express purpose of avoiding paying their fair share in this country.
This is a megatrend in corporate Canada. It is a growing trend. More and more Canadian companies are reincorporating themselves offshore as a way to slash their tax bills, often by hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, the total aggregate lost revenue estimated by the tax havens that exist currently is $7 billion a year.
We see our Minister of National Revenue wrestling to find another $1 billion a year in revenue that the Liberals can put toward more useful spending. They do that by cutting and trimming and frankly by reducing programs in many cases, programs delivered to Canadians and that Canadians value. However, they are ignoring and showing a wilful blindness to the $7 billion that is hemorrhaging offshore and is not being taxed.
Furthermore, I will point out another problem. Profits move offshore to these havens like Barbados. If the profits come back into Canada in any way, they are taxed, but if they are reinvested in a third foreign country, in another place, they are not taxed.
This actually encourages the flight of capital from Canada. Not only is it deposited in Barbados long enough for companies to avoid paying income tax on it, but if it is reinvested in Mexico or China or some third world country for building a plant there rather than bringing it back to Canada to build a plant or grow a company, it is tax free altogether. This is an absolutely self-defeating policy that shortchanges Canadians and undermines everything we are doing. It makes me furious, frankly, the more that I think about it.
Setting up shop on a sun-kissed island like Barbados really is as simple as creating a post office box and the bare shell of a company. When companies say they are investing their profits in Barbados, we all know that is tongue in cheek. It simply is not true. There may only be four or five employees in the shell company in Barbados, a post office box and a telephone, but as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Joliette, just pointed out, $23 billion a year is invested in Barbados in a country of 700,000 people. I do not believe them. I am not calling anybody a liar here, but I do not believe that is a legitimate investment in that country. That is a tax shelter to avoid paying Canadian taxes. It is to our detriment, to our great loss, because we are losing this revenue.
It is completely unfair for a Canadian citizen or a Canadian company to enjoy the benefits of all the things that are good about Canada, but to legally avoid paying their fair share to maintain what we consider a great country and a great place to live. I do not know how they sleep at night.
I know we are not alone. It occurs in the United States. This is a trend that we are copying in the corporate world generally. Capital knows no borders. I also argue that capital has no conscience, but it certainly knows no borders and we are following this negative trend in the United States.
Everybody's favourite company to beat up these days is Enron, which pushed the envelope, I suppose, farther than anybody else. It had 881 dummy tax companies in the Caribbean, Bermuda and Barbados, and they paid no taxes for the last four out of five years until they completely collapsed. People without scruples, morals or ethics will find a way to avoid paying their fair share.
Another more famous Canadian company, Canada Steamship Lines, does not have one company in Barbados; it has 13. There are reasons companies move their money to one Barbados company, then to another and another, all within the same tax haven and tax shelter. Then, as I said, if they move it farther offshore out of Barbados, they avoid paying taxes altogether, because they never repatriate that money into Canada. It never gets reinvested in this country. It is a motivation to keep moving that Canadian money farther and farther away.
This is a real travesty. Those Canadian companies which are availing themselves of this unethical practice are in the company of Tyco and Enron which paved the way for them. The most irritating thing of all is that these companies I accuse of economic treason are still given federal government contracts. We still reward their bad behaviour with contracts.
At least the state of California put its foot down, to its credit. It is way ahead of us here. The state of California has a blacklist of 23 major contractors, such as Ingersoll-Rand and Tyco, major corporations that it refuses to deal with. It refuses to invest in them. It refuses to give contracts to them because they are tax fugitives who refuse to pay their taxes in the United States, but they are still given contracts from the federal government.
Interestingly enough, one company was given the very contract to design a website for the Internal Revenue Service. Accenture received a $1 billion contract to design Internal Revenue Service's website. That company is a tax evader, a tax fugitive which moved all of its company offshore so it does not have to pay American taxes. I wonder if it built into that IRS website a portal through which people who go to that website can funnel their money out of the country so they do not have to pay taxes on it in that country. That is how bad it is getting.
It is similar to inside information. Those guys who meet with the secret handshake in the corporate boardrooms of the nation all know how to do it. They share that information with each other and it is compounding and growing.
It is incumbent upon governments to put in place a tax regime where people pay their fair share of taxes, yet the government has taken no steps to plug this outrageous tax loophole that exists for the Barbados. One would think that while we are debating a bill about tax treaties and havens, we would plug this last remaining egregious tax loophole, because our dollars have wings on them and they are flying out of this country.
Imagine what we could do with the $7 billion in lost revenue that we knowingly and willingly allow to walk out of the country every day. We would not have to pay so much tax if others paid their fair share of taxes.
We keep lowering the corporate tax rate. One could argue the efficacy of that on either side; there are two debates to be made. We knowingly and willingly allow corporate Canada to lower its tax rate to 1% and 2% by sending it to Barbados. Why would we do that? How low do we have to go?
I guess the story we would hear from the Business Council on National Issues is that the only acceptable corporate tax rate is no corporate tax rate and it does not want to participate in paying taxes to build this great nation. That burden falls to the individual taxpayer. It is negligence on the part of the government to knowingly and willingly allow this money to fly out of the country.
There have been $23 billion of investment in Barbados. I have never been to Barbados but I know there is not $23 billion per year worth of construction going on by Canadian companies.
The banks are masters at this game. Of course banks know money. Money is the banks' stock and trade. It is their business. There was some excellent research done which I will recognize and pay tribute to today by Professor Léo-Paul Lauzon at the Université du Québec. He pulled no punches in condemning the big banks for their exploitation of tax havens.
According to an article in the Montreal Gazette , the tax bill for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce would have been roughly $844 million last year, but it dropped to $239 million largely due to the bank's use of tax haven branches. That is $500 million from one of Canada's five chartered banks in lost opportunity to Canadians.
The last time I checked, the banks were not struggling. They are showing record profits from quarter to quarter. Why are we not making them pay their fair share of taxes? Why are we inviting them to abuse the tax system and making us all pay more to struggle to maintain the social services that we value? It is incomprehensible to me. At some point in time while I am here I hope I will be able to--
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask for some clarification. I believe the member while speaking about the tax havens in Barbados said in his speech that Canada Steamship Lines is registered in Barbados and has a direct tie to the Prime Minister. Is he permitted to say something like that in the House?
The Deputy Speaker: I think that is a point of debate. We do not have any records on who owns what, but it is within the context of the taxation bill that we are discussing.
We should resume debate and allow the member to get to his conclusions.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the topic of my speech is tax treaties, tax havens, and Canadian companies' use of tax havens. When I cite examples that are common knowledge and a matter of public record, I do not expect to be corrected nor sanctioned for pointing those things out.
We owe a great debt to people in the private sector like Professor Léo-Paul Lauzon who are compiling the empirical evidence on the actual experience of our current tax system and the cost to Canadians in allowing this corporate ripoff to continue. This is the biggest corporate giveaway since the railway. It is knowingly and willingly allowing Canadian dollars that should properly be put to use for the benefit of Canadians to fly out of the country.
We are being gouged and ripped off. We look to our federal government for help and support in situations like that. Governments are elected to look after our interests, to put our interests first. Somehow big money has controlled things in Ottawa for so long that not surprisingly all the legislation seems crafted to look after their interests instead of looking after the interests of the ordinary person.
Just once I wish common sense would prevail in this place. Just once I wish reason and logic would carry the day.
I am not an accountant or even particularly bright and I get what is wrong with this. I saw it immediately. Anybody on the Sparks Street Mall would say it is fundamentally wrong to be gouged and ripped off like this. If this were common knowledge, it would make Canadians' blood boil.
It could be simple. Within the parameters of Bill S-17 the government could have introduced tax treaties with Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman, and Azerbaijan and torn up the tax haven with the Barbados. Eliminate it. Get rid of it. Let us do something useful around here. It is the end of the week and it would be delightful to leave on a positive note that we just found $7 billion that knowingly and willingly has been flushed down the toilet for many years but now we can put that money to good use. I can think of any number of positive things the money could be used for in my riding of Winnipeg Centre.
While I recognize the merits of Bill S-17 in terms of the effect it will have on our financial relationship with Gabon, Armenia and Oman, we have been victims of a diversion. We are avoiding the issue of tax avoidance as it pertains to corporate Canada, and we continue to allow Canadians to be ripped off. It is shameful that many companies avail themselves of that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would not want you to consider our agreement as dissent. We are in favour of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It was carried and not on division.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Pierre Pettigrew: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, March 22 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-22, an act to establish the Department of Social Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Pierre Pettigrew: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, March 22 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mauril Bélanger: I believe that, if you were to seek unanimous consent, the House would agree to call it 2:30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 21 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:37 p.m.)