Jean Dubé

[Post-Secondary Education, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government has not only taken a scalpel to our Canadian health care system, it has also gutted funding for post-secondary education. For example, the U.S. federal government invests $500 per post-secondary education student. The Liberal government in Ottawa invests only $144 per post-secondary education student.

Will the Prime Minister change his attitude toward post-secondary education and start investing sufficient funding so that this country can be a leader again?

[Cultural Industry, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, New Brunswick, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of Motion No. 259, a votable motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

It is very important to recognize that civilized societies have always supported the arts and culture. It is a tradition that has been valued throughout history. We should seek to maintain and improve this with policies, not specifically tax policies, but policies that support and encourage culture and the development of the arts in Canada, which has had a long and diverse history.

As an Atlantic Canadian from New Brunswick, one of the most culturally diverse and productive regions in Canada, we value a tradition of excellence. There are economic opportunities for all Canadians in recognizing and harnessing the power of the arts and cultural community, whether it is the Lion King in Toronto, or musicians like the Rankin Family and Natasha St-Pierre in Atlantic Canada who started from very humble means and have done extremely well, or artists who have reached international acclaim, like Roch Voisine who was born in my riding in New Brunswick. These types of success stories are worthy of recognition. However, we must do more to help artists when they are starting off.

The motion is very sound from the perspective of the hon. member's desire to help. However, there are some difficulties in its implementation and I would like to point out a couple of them.

It is very nebulous in terms of describing who qualifies and how the term artist fits a specific individual and whether or not that can be defined and the definition defended effectively.

The hon. member also pointed out the financial roller coaster artists are on. An artist may go on for several years without payment and then receive a lump sum payment recognizing contributions made over a period of time. The best way to address that would be through income averaging. This would also address other people who are similarly predisposed through the nature of their business to receive lump sum payments in recognition of work completed over a period of several years. Income averaging would be the best way to address it.

The average income of an artist in Canada is currently estimated at about $13,000. The issue raised by the hon. member can be addressed in a more broadly based way by significantly raising the basic personal exemption for all Canadians. The Progressive Conservative Party's task force which reported in January recommended an increase to $12,000. This would help significantly. That being the case, we should move over a period of time to raise the basic personal exemption.

The hon. member also recognized that tax relief could play an important role in helping artists pursue their chosen field of culture and art and in keeping them in Canada. It indicates that he recognizes the importance of lowering taxes for all Canadians to ensure that Canadians, regardless of career or life pursuit, can choose to stay and prosper in Canada. Whether it is a dot com, e-commerce, biotech or traditional industry, Canadians could have a future in Canada.

The hon. member demonstrated clearly that he recognizes the important role that tax policy plays in encouraging and discouraging pursuit of particular activities. In that vein I think he would agree that we should continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the tax burdens of Canadians are not excessive when compared to those of other countries.

Whether Canadians wish to pursue careers in the arts or the traditional economy we want them to be free to do so in Canada. I am sure he would share with me the need to reduce taxes for all Canadians based on his basic premise that decreasing taxes could help to encourage people, in this case artists, to pursue and maintain a certain level of activity.

The issue of capital gains tax needs to be addressed as well. In Canada we currently tax at 50% of the regular inclusion rate for the donation of publicly traded or listed securities to charitable foundations or institutions. Whether it is a hospital, a university, an endowment fund or a cultural activity, we tax 50% of capital gains.

Inclusion rates are taxed in Canada for donation of publicly traded or listed securities. In the U.S. there is absolutely no capital gains taxes on contributions of listed securities. This has led over the years to a significant disadvantage for Canadian universities, Canadian hospitals and the Canadian arts community. It has created a disincentive for high net worth Canadians to contribute listed shares of publicly traded companies to the cultural sector, health foundations and universities.

At the time of the prebudget report the Progressive Conservative dissenting report recommended the elimination of capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities. That would go a long way toward encouraging high net worth individuals in Canada and Canadians of relatively modest means who may have done very well in equity investing in recent years to help foster a greater environment for cultural activity in Canada. That is one way this could be addressed.

I would also be interested in exploring the examples of other countries relative to special tax exemptions for those engaged in the arts. By and large there is only one party in the House of Commons which consistently opposes any support for the Canadian arts. I expect it would probably kick a member out of its caucus if it were discovered that he or she had gone to live theatre.

It is important that there be almost an all-party commitment to the arts and cultural community in the House of Commons. While I may disagree with the particular vehicle set forth by the hon. member to help create a better environment for cultural and artistic diversity in Canada, I assure him that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada remains committed to work with altruistically oriented parties in the House.

We must seek better ways to support and encourage the arts and all types of creative endeavours for Canadians, whether they be involved in graphic arts, the dot com universe, weaving, painting, dancing or playwriting.

One of the things that defines us as Canadians is our unique culture and vibrancy from coast to coast to coast, which we shall continue to have with the proper support and encouragement of all Canadians.

[Canada Games, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, very soon the region of Madawaska—Restigouche will be hosting the next Canada Games.

Can the minister tell the House today how negotiations are going with the host society and with the provincial government? Can he guarantee that the federal government will be at the plate to guarantee the best Canada Games ever?

[Highway Construction, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the 1993 federal election, former transport minister Doug Young transferred to his own riding funds that had already been earmarked for the major highway project in the riding of Madawaska.

This is a very important project for the region's economic future.

Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether he intends to undertake negotiations with the Government of New Brunswick to reach an agreement, so that this highway can become a reality?

[Persons With Disabilities, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, several of my fellow citizens told me that the changes made in 1995 to the eligibility rules for the tax deduction for persons with disabilities make it very difficult, if not impossible, to benefit from that deduction.

Is the Minister of National Revenue prepared to recognize this fact and will he consult his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to correct this unfair situation for persons with disabilities and thus give them the means to improve their quality of life?

[Employment Insurance, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Madawaska—Restigouche, whom I have the honour of representing here in the House, I want to express the frustration we feel with regard to the changes that were made to the employment insurance map for that region.

People will have to work at least 595 hours, instead of the 425 hours currently required, to be eligible for benefits, for which they are still paying astronomically high premiums.

Moreover, these same people will be entitled to only 18 weeks of benefits, compared to 28 weeks as is currently the case. And all that while there is a $30 billion surplus in the EI fund.

These changes do not take into account the social and economic reality of the Madawaska region. A large percentage of the jobs in our region are seasonal, whether it be in forestry, agriculture, construction or tourism.

I call upon the Minister of Human Resources Development to review the current proposal and to join the Madawaska region with the economic region of Restigouche-Albert.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and ward crimes.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports and applauds this excellent initiative by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

First of all, I should like to congratulate the members of the standing committee on foreign affairs, who all worked together on this initiative without any needless party politics. Moreover, the committee report was tabled this week and all members are, I believe, pleased with the way it has turned out.

Much can be said about this bill. I believe it would be advisable to review the main thrust of Bill C-19.

The purpose of Bill C-19 is to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICC, on July 17, 1998. In order to have a clear understanding of this bill, it is important to first of all have a clear understanding of the objective and scope of the Rome Statute.

The Statute was approved in July 1998 by 120 countries and will come into existence after ratification by the parliaments of 60 states. The ICC will be the first permanent international instance mandated to investigate the most serious of crimes under international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

I am proud. It was high time for Canada to show some leadership by ensuring that the authors of these horrible crimes are charged and punished. With so many lives lost, the international community should work together in order to do something.

With Bill C-19 Canada joins forces with the numerous countries, which are taking the necessary steps to integrate the Rome Statute with their national legislation. Although nine states have already ratified the Statute, it is a source of pride to the Progressive Conservatives Party that Canada is one of the first to enact legislation to implement the Rome Statute.

According to the Department of Justice there are presently in Canada 400 people that are deemed to have been involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.

It is totally unacceptable that those war criminals could quietly live as if nothing had happened. Canada does not want to be recognized as a haven for war criminals.

The clock was ticking. The international community had to get together to develop a permanent organization having all the powers to fulfil it's obligations. We could not ignore the atrocities committed in some countries under the guise of war any more. It was too easy, and unfortunately, the previous system of ad hoc tribunals was not very efficient. Being a permanent organization, the ICC will be able to fulfil its mandate.

Clause 4 of the bill states that every person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime is guilty of an indictable offence. The definition of those three terms is based on sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute.

It is an addition to the criminal code since every person convicted of one of these offences is sentenced to life emprisonement if their crime was intentional. In all other cases, that person is liable to life imprisonment.

These measures would apply to offences committed in Canada and would allow the government to bring an action against the perpetrators or to extradite them so that they can be judged by the ICC. As I have already said, it is a real improvement because it was very difficult for the Department of Justice to prosecute war criminals who had found refuge in Canada because of the court's decision in the Finta case that we have already talked about.

There is however an element on which I would like to come back, and it is the defence argument of obedience to the orders of a superior. It will be remembered that in his client's defence, Mr. Finta's lawyer argued correctly that, under the criminal code, the defence of obedience to a superior's orders was available to members of the military or police forces.

From now on this kind of defence will no longer be available, except under international law. These provisions were necessary.

Another feature of the bill is its retroactivity. Some expressed reservations about this. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the minister and the committee on their work. In most cases, the events in question occurred as far back as the second world war or during conflicts prior to the signing of the Rome Statute.

One must be realistic. Since most of the events date back more than 50 years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the individuals who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against humanity, especially under the nazi regime. Moreover, justice department officials had difficulty finding witnesses to those events to justify the extradition. If the bill had not applied retroactively, it would not have made sense.

Bill C-19 is fairly complete, as it gives jurisdiction to Canadian courts in the case of offences committed outside Canada through clause 8. This clause also recognizes that Canadian courts have the authority to prosecute any person charged with having committed specific acts, providing one of the conditions listed exists.

With respect to Bill C-19, Canada now has an obligation to surrender people caught by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I could say a lot more about the need for such a bill, but in conclusion I will mention that victims of war have suffered terrible ordeals, and through Bill C-19 Canada takes the position that no war criminal is safe or welcome within our borders.

This position has the support of Canadians and the Progressive Conservative Party. We do not want our great country to serve as a haven for war criminals.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says he does not speak out of cabinet and he has been briefed. I hope he was briefed by the HRDC minister throughout all of this mismanagement.

The minister was singing the government's praises earlier.

This is the same government that said it would scrap the GST in its red book. Remember that? This is the same government.

The minister stands today, looks Canadians in the eye and talks about Charlo Airport in New Brunswick. I am glad he knows about Charlo Airport. It was because of this government that this part of the country was cut off from the rest of the country with no air transportation.

Today I want to thank the Charlo Airport commission for the excellent work it did in restoring air service to Charlo.

What about rail service in New Brunswick? VIA Rail was there during the Tory government, but when the Liberal government came in it was taken out of Saint John and Edmunston, New Brunswick. These people as well were cut off from the rest of Canada.

I met with some students from McGill University and the University of New Brunswick. They said that the problem with Canada is that people do not know the country. They do not know what goes on in Quebec City. They do not know what goes on in western Canada. They do not know what goes on in Atlantic Canada. We have one part fighting with another part. They said it is too expensive to travel within Canada.

What has the government done? What does the government intend to do to restore VIA Rail service in New Brunswick, to Edmunston and to Saint John?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech on transportation today. I also arrived late from New Brunswick. I was caught at the Montreal airport with my colleague.

What does my hon. colleague think can be done to rectify the problem with transportation in Canada? When I talk about the problems with transportation, I am talking about VIA Rail and the airlines. Should there not be a national policy on transportation that includes every region of every province?

VIA Rail was taken away from Saint John, New Brunswick not too long ago under this government. Today that region is looking for new ideas on transportation.

What does my hon. colleague think can be done if the government has done everything it can to guarantee access by all Canadians?

[Human Resources Development, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in her department for almost one year and yet has to take action to protect the personal and private information of Canadians.

Could the minister please tell us what she has been doing to protect the privacy of Canadians since last August?