Nick Discepola

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, one of the most important features of the bill to establish the Canada customs and revenue agency is without a doubt the increased participation of the provinces and territories. The framework for their participation is an important part of the proposal to create the agency.

Revenue Canada is already providing them with a number of services and has taken steps to further increase co-ordination of fiscal administration. By creating appropriate conditions for improved co-ordination, the agency will be able to serve national and provincial interests.

In addition, the new agency will make it possible to reduce duplication and overlap in the administration of federal and provincial revenue. There is only one taxpayer. Why, therefore, is there not just one tax collection agency?

This approach will enable government to reduce its administrative costs and lower enforcement costs.

We feel it is important to mention that the new agency will not be taking over provincial or territorial powers. No action will be taken until the provinces and territories agree that it is cost-effective for the agency to provide a particular service.

We also wish to point out that this fundamental attitude is not new in Canada. Right now, Revenue Canada collects individual income taxes for nine provinces and corporate taxes for seven.

Revenue Canada administers social benefit programs for British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia. It also collects sales taxes and taxes on alcohol and tobacco products for many provinces at border points. Revenue Canada also administers the national child benefit.

There is therefore no lack of precedents for this co-ordination and pooling of services. The proposed agency's structure could lead to even greater co-operation and, at the same time, increased provincial participation in fiscal administration.

For their part, the provinces and territories will be able to submit lists of candidates from the private sector for 11 of the 15 director positions on the board of management, which will be responsible for planning the agency's activities. These directors will not represent the interests of their own province; they will instead help the agency take into account the special characteristics of provinces and regions in its management activities.

The agency will have fairly broad powers to enable it to conclude agreements on the provision of services with each province, such as on the collection of an unharmonized provincial tax.

To date, Revenue Canada has administered only those provincial taxes that were harmonized with federal taxes. Thus the number of programs Revenue Canada could administer was limited. Under Bill C-43, the agency will have the power to administer taxes that are not harmonized, such as a provincial sales tax that is not harmonized. There are, nevertheless, economies of scale to be achieved with a single administration, even with an unharmonized tax.

The agency will conclude an agreement with a province to administer a tax, but all agreements reached will be governed by the guidelines established by the ministers of finance of the federal and provincial governments.

These guidelines will ensure that all taxes collected by the agency for the provinces and territories will first be legally valid, will not interfere with the self-assessment system, will not result in double taxation, will be fair and, finally, will be collected in the context of contractual agreements acceptable to all parties.

This last criterion reflects an important aspect of these agreements. They are service contracts. The agency will provide a service to a province or a territory according to the specific terms of a contract between the two parties.

This means that the province or territory will continue to enjoy full powers to apply the tax and will be accountable to its taxpayers in this regard. The agency will have to consolidate its obligation to report to the provinces with respect to the administration of programs on their behalf, so that they in turn may provide an accounting to their own taxpayers.

Once a year, the agency commissioner will have to report to the provincial and territorial ministers on the programs and services administered on their behalf. In addition, he will offer to meet the ministers annually as well in order to obtain their feedback on the agency's performance with respect to their programs and services.

This reinforcement of the obligation of accountability and of performance guarantees between the agency and the provinces and territories will make it possible to ensure that programs and services remain innovative, client-focused and, above all, cost-effective.

A study by the Public Policy Forum estimates that Revenue Canada could administer current provincial taxes at a saving of between $97 and $162 million over what it costs today. This represents an overall drop of 6% over today's costs, if all provinces participate.

Initially, a good number of the provinces adopted a wait-and-see attitude. They wanted to see the agency fully operational before giving unconditional support. This attitude changed as the information about the agency became clearer and the consultation process advanced. In fact, the attitude of several of the provinces was very positive and they are now prepared to give serious consideration to handing some of their activities over to the agency.

At the present time, we are undertaking joint studies with certain provinces in order to examine specific possibilities. The more provinces and territories participate, the more savings there will be for individuals, businesses and governments. It is, therefore, in the interest of all Canadians to have as much provincial and territorial participation as possible.

The position of New Brunswick Minister of Finance Edmond Blanchard is a typical example of this. In a recent Canadian Press article dated March 20, 1998, he expressed his agreement for the agency to handle more of New Brunswick's taxation operations. According to Mr. Blanchard, “If efficiency can be enhanced, I am prepared to look at the options”.

Bill C-43 will put the Canada customs and revenue agency into concrete form. This agency will be structured and positioned in such a way as to obtain the support of the provinces and territories. All provinces and territories, as well as the federal government, have worked hard to put their finances in order. The Canada customs and revenue agency now represents an opportunity to reduce costly duplication and overlap between the various levels of government still further.

When we speak of provincial participation in this new agency, there is one particular question that crops up once again: How can a true national agency be set up without the participation of Quebec?

The success of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is not dependent on the participation of all provinces and territories. In fact, participation in the agency's activities is optional. The purpose of the agency is to provide a platform that would help the provinces. The agency will not appropriate provincial powers.

We have consulted Quebec, and the other provinces, since the beginning of the process. Quebec told us that, while it does not want the new agency to administer its programs, it wants to be kept informed of the agency's progress.

The legislation establishing the agency proposes a framework based on closer co-operation. The provinces, including Quebec, do not have to give to the agency the responsibility of administering a larger number of programs on their behalf. That decision is made by each individual province.

It should be noted that Quebec's participation would increase the benefits of having a single tax agency. However, even if Quebec does not participate, Canadian businesses will benefit from annual savings of $116 million to $193 million. Moreover, annual savings of between $37 million and $62 million will be achieved in terms of the administrative costs for all governments.

Any new program administered by the agency will have been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. This will apply to Quebec, as well as to other provinces.

I should point out that even if Quebec decides not to have the agency administer one of its programs, it could still be represented on the board of management.

In conclusion, there are many issues on which the parties and regions may disagree. However, if we want all Canadians to achieve substantial savings, regardless of their province or origin, all of us in this House must remember that we represent one person, the taxpayer, and that we must do our utmost to make that person save money. I do hope that all members will support this initiative.

[Quebec's Tourist Industry, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has just had an exceptional tourist season, according to all the statistics.

The favourable economic conditions that permitted foreign travellers to benefit from the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar combined with Quebec's numerous attractions and the warmth of its people gave a boost to the economy of this province.

The Government of Canada is also contributing to the revitalization of tourism in Quebec through a variety of federal-provincial agreements on regional development. I would point out as well that, in our first term, our government set up an agency to develop Canada's tourist industry.

Finally, we must never forget that our visitors appreciate the diversity of Canada and of Quebec, where they discover the wealth and facets of the francophone culture unique in this corner of North America.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, over the last few months, I have followed this debate with great interest. As members of this House were told last week, Bill C-3 will help the police in a number of ways, across the country and even internationally.

Having a DNA data bank will provide police with a strong tool in its fight against crime. It will also allow Canada to be a leader in the use of DNA identification technology and to then establish a national DNA data bank.

The Solicitor General of Canada deserves to be congratulated for the caution he showed in asking that the bill be carefully reviewed by a committee of the House made up of members from all parties. Personally, I also congratulate him for involving Canadians in the process, through a public debate on the subtleties and scope of this legislation.

It is very important that Canadians be allowed to express their views and have a say in how their government operates. This is why the government held public consultations right across the country, before drafting and tabling its legislation last year. When the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before second reading, the committee heard over 30 witnesses and diligently reviewed all the information submitted. Since it was introduced, Bill C-3 has been examined openly and transparently. It really reflects Canadians' viewpoints.

Genetic analysis is a powerful investigative tool, and the bill provides strong measures to protect against its possible abuse. The government has heard testimony from top experts, who said that genetic evidence can reveal much more about an individual than a breath sample, a finger print or even a blood sample. Given the power of genetic analyses, the issue of privacy is of considerable concern to our government. We must therefore act with the utmost care.

As regards the protection of privacy, I would like to explain what the government considers to be the problems and how Bill C-3 represents, in my opinion, a solid and balanced approach.

I would first like to raise the issue of keeping the samples. Scientists have put forward solid arguments showing that biological samples must be kept for the genetic data bank to take advantage of future technological progress.

In addition, a forensic science expert from the RCMP told the committee last March that significant progress had been made in recent years in DNA identification technology. Smaller samples, including those found in decayed matter, can now be examined.

These technological advances prove that genetic analysis is clearly one of the most active and rapidly evolving scientific areas. With developments in the technology, today's DNA profiles could become outmoded.

Bill C-3 provides therefore that samples will be kept. Canada's national DNA data bank will thus mirror the technological progress made the world over, and Canada will be able to send DNA information for medical and legal purposes to other laboratories and data banks throughout the world.

The question of who will have access to the samples and to the DNA profiles arises. Drawing on the bill passed in July 1995 on warrants authorizing samples to be taken for DNA analysis, Bill C-3 includes protective measures and provisions on these samples.

Up to now, statutory provisions on warrants have withstood all legal challenges under the charter and have provided a solid basis for the creation of the DNA data bank.

Bill C-3 therefore contains strict rules on biological sampling and DNA identification and on the retention of DNA profiles in order to protect personal information.

I repeat, personal information will be protected under this law. The RCMP will be responsible for the secure storage of all biological samples. Access to DNA profiles and samples will be limited strictly to those responsible for the operation and maintenance of the data bank.

So that information is not misused, the bill provides explicitly that only the name associated with the profile will be supplied to police authorities during criminal investigations.

The bill also makes it an offence under the Criminal Code and the DNA Identification Act to misuse any profiles or samples and provides for criminal sanctions against offenders.

The DNA data bank will respect the right to privacy of all innocent people at the crime scene or of law-abiding citizens who volunteer to provide DNA samples to the police.

In fact, the bill contains provisions for the destruction of information in the crime scene index pertaining to a victim or individual no longer considered a suspect after a police investigation.

This is an important safeguard designed to ensure that the data bank does not contain the DNA profiles of innocent people.

The bill also allows those required to give samples to state their preference as to the bodily substance to be taken.

The police must take these preferences into account, but are not in any way obliged to act on them, being required to consider other factors as well.

For instance, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that the taking of hair samples violated charter provisions, and forensic experts said that blood was best suited to DNA analysis.

Bill C-3 accordingly leaves it up to the police to decide on the most suitable samples to be taken.

Clearly, the bill has been drafted with extreme care. The Government of Canada is convinced of its ability to strike a balance between public safety on the one hand and the protection of privacy on the other. In addition to the protective measures and sanctions set out in Bill C-3, there are other mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing that the bill will be applied in such a way as to maintain that balance.

Once the data bank is in operation, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to carry out an audit at any time. He is already authorized by the Privacy Act to monitor the use of personal information in the hands of the federal administration.

In addition, Canadian forensic laboratories are in the process of drawing up accreditation standards. Once these standards are in effect, forensic laboratories can be audited by an independent body as well, in order to guarantee compliance with internationally recognized quality assurance standards.

There are already provisions, such as those in the Privacy Act, to ensure that information, including DNA information, cannot be provided to another country unless an agreement is in place with that country. The Privacy Act also prevents personal information from being provided to another country for any purpose other than law enforcement or investigation.

When the RCMP becomes responsible for the DNA bank, its operations will have to comply with RCMP internal standards, and these, I am proud to say, are among the most stringent in the world. In addition, the RCMP works in close collaboration with a number of international groups and committees in this area, including the FBI-sponsored Technical Group on DNA Analysis Methodology which provides Canada with state of the art technology and makes it possible for our country to ensure that its standards are in line with those in effect elsewhere in the world.

I would now like to explain to you why sampling must be done at the time of sentencing, not at the time the person is arrested or charged, as some have proposed.

We have looked into this matter in great detail, both in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and as a government. During consultations on the bill, and during the committee hearings, many individuals and groups of experts told our government most emphatically that sampling at the time of arrest was problematical.

DNA identification alone rarely leads to a conviction. In fact, crime scenes do not always yield DNA evidence. A number of factors—alibis, motives, fingerprints and eyewitness statements—are taken into consideration in criminal cases. However, in the face of insistence by the police community, which asked it to consider the possibility of amending the bill, the government consulted legal experts to find out whether samples could be taken without a warrant when an arrest is made or when charges are laid without contravening the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Three eminent former justices of the courts of appeal of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia considered the matter in an independent investigation.

They unanimously upheld the government's position. Under the law, taking samples during arraignment would contravene the provisions of the charter.

I repeat, taking samples when charges are laid would contravene the provisions of the charter. In Canada, the accused is presumed innocent and must be protected from all unreasonable searches or seizures.

Let there be no doubt on this point. The government must continue to act cautiously and with forethought in this matter. We want to take the approach most favourable to all Canadians.

It serves no purpose to intrude in the personal privacy of everyone arrested, when genetic imprints may not even be necessary. There is no point pondering this question further when the legal experts have told us on many occasions that there would be too great a risk of a challenge under the charter.

Finally, we cannot endanger the establishment of a genetic data bank—whose purpose is to better serve Canadians—by being over zealous.

Sampling at sentencing will permit the effective application of legislation and protect individual rights during a criminal investigation.

Let us therefore pass a bill that will be effective rather than a text that will surely not stand up to court challenges. The police know how easily the Constitution is used to dismiss charges.

I think that all members will share my view that it is contrary to public safety to have cases thrown out on technicalities.

It is therefore up to all members to play a constructive role in creating a DNA bank that will strike a balance between protection of the public and privacy rights under the charter.

We are obviously on the right track in our fight to protect Canadians against crime. With Bill C-3, I believe that our government has struck the right balance.

I therefore have no hesitation in supporting this bill and I recommend that all my colleagues in the House do likewise.

[Gun Control, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today, opponents of gun control are demonstrating on Parliament Hill. A number of speakers will be making unfair demands.

I wish to state that, with firearm control legislation, the government is responding to the call of Canadians, the parents of child victims of crimes or accidents involving firearms in particular.

We are going to continue to work along with these Canadians, who have called for gun control legislation in hopes of reducing the crime rate in our communities.

The government will not allow itself to be intimidated by statements from the other side of the floor, or from demonstrators on the Hill. A large majority of Canadians support gun control. The debate is closed. The Canadian firearms control program will come into effect December 1.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild Rose was cited as saying that if we put more criminals behind bars the crime rate may fall. I think I am quoting him exactly. I would like him to explain why the American theory does not apply. They have the highest number of penitentiaries, yet they also have the highest number of criminals.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in essence, I would like to maybe correct the claim of the member for York South—Weston that had we removed section 745, Clifford Olson would not have been able to apply.

The member knows full well that even rescinding section 745 of the Criminal Code would be retroactive and therefore the likes of Bernardo or Clifford Olson would not have been taken care of.

The changes we made will prevent Paul Bernardo from applying because he has to be able to prove with a certain amount of cause that he will be able to succeed.

I would like to ask the member one question. He refers to the relevancy of parliament. Is it relevant that he attends the House of Commons only on Tuesdays, especially when there are a lot of votes, to make his record better? Is relevancy only for members on this side? Is it maybe relevant for independent members to attend parliament on days other than Tuesdays?

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred I believe six times to the absence of members of parliament. I thought while we were participating in debate we were not supposed to refer to the presence or absence. Since Mr. Speaker let it go six times, I decided I would ask the member—

[Division No. 203, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything when the member for York South—Weston got up from his seat when we voted on Motion No. 3. Nor did I say anything when he got up from his seat on Motion No. 6. Nor did I say anything when he used his cellular as we were voting on Motion No. 8.

However, on the current motion, Mr. Speaker, if you consult Beauchesne's it says that the member should remain in his seat until the division is complete and the result announced. I believe the member left his seat before the result was announced.

[Port-Cartier Penitentiary, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to discuss an issue which, as the hon. member for Manicouagan pointed out, was raised in the House on October 22, 1997.

The hon. member expressed concern about management of the maximum security penitentiary at Port-Cartier, Quebec, and asked the government to institute a public inquiry.

On August 28, 1997 staff from the day shift at Port-Cartier institution in the Quebec region refused to relieve the night staff from their posts, citing dangerous working conditions. Later that morning staff invoked Part II of the Canada Labour Code.

During the evening, Labour Canada issued an interim ruling ordering evening shift employees to perform their duties. It also asked employees to put in writing their reasons for invoking part II of the Canada Labour Code. Labour Canada officials were at the Port-Cartier institution on the morning of August 29 to conduct their inquiry.

I should also point out that, on August 30, the situation at the institution had gone back to normal. On September 2, at the end of its independent inquiry, Labour Canada issued its final ruling, confirming that the immediate safety of the staff was not at risk.

It should also be known that Labour Canada is an independent body which addresses the health and safety concerns of all employees involved in any federal work within the legislative authority of parliament. As I have just stated, it acted very promptly.

The principle of prevention is integrated into the Canada Labour Code, which gives a number of basic rights to workers in the federal administration, so as to ensure their safety in the workplace.

There have been instances where the employees availed themselves of their right to refuse to work, and where the inquiry conducted by Labour Canada concluded that their health and safety were not at risk, or that the danger was hypothetical rather than actual. Such was the case regarding the events of August 29, 1997.

Since the right to refuse to work can often result in an immediate lockdown, which in turn results in increased tension within the inmate population, it is extremely important that this right be used for resolving genuine safety and health concerns.

On October 23 during Oral Question Period our hon. colleague, the member for Manicouagan, asked the Solicitor General why he refused to order a public inquiry. As my colleague knows very well, the solicitor general answered the question a number of times. He explained his reasons, once again, in a letter to the member for Charlesbourg October 2.

The solicitor general said it was not necessary at that point to call a public inquiry, because Labour Canada had already investigated employees' concerns.

It is also worthwhile to mention that the hon. member for Manicouagan submitted an application for access to information at the Correctional Service of Canada on September 9 to view and hear the recordings of the events that occurred at Port-Cartier institution on August 28.

On December 16 the member visited Port-Cartier to view and listen to the recordings. He watched the video cassettes first and decided not to listen to the audio cassettes.

He did not raise any specific problem. He did, however, indicate to the director of the institution that he had met a number of employees, that things seemed to be going well and that progress had been made since August. In the light of these observations, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada considered the matter closed.

I thank my hon. colleague for expressing his concerns on the matter.

[Correctional Service Canada, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hiring of 1,000 new correctional officers is not at all inconsistent with the desire to reduce the prison population. On the contrary, it is good news for corrections. It is consistent with our goal to have effective corrections.

Correctional officers do not simply perform guard duty. They participate in programming, case management, risk assessment and provide proactive intervention measures.

In summary, they will reduce the individual caseloads of officers resulting in more effective corrections and will bring stability to some of the institutions.