Bill C-24 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories)

This enactment amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make fiscal equalization payments to the provinces for the fiscal years beginning after March 31, 2004 and to change the manner in which those payments will be calculated. It also authorizes the Minister to pay, under a new legislative regime, grants to the territories for the fiscal years between April 1, 2001 and March 31, 2005 and territorial formula financing payments for subsequent fiscal years. Finally, this enactment also makes consequential amendments to that Act and to other Acts.

Supply

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to take part in this debate on the Bloc Québécois motion. Our motion seeks to amend the Criminal Code so as to reverse the burden of proof in our legislation.

This motion was moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and seconded by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. First, it is important to read the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to better fight crime, the government should introduce a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused, once found guilty of a serious offence, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

First, I want to remind the House that the motion introduced today comes as no surprise. The Bloc Québécois has been working for many years and has led a real crusade since the 2000 election campaign to get the federal government to introduce measures and amend the Criminal Code to include this reversal of the burden of proof.

On this side of the House we thought, and still do, that we needed to provide police officers and crown prosecutors with every possible means to combat organized crime better, since it is has such a social and economic toll on society. As early as the 2000 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois had been calling for amendments to the Criminal Code, thereby providing law enforcement officers with more concrete measures and more suitable provisions to deal with this scourge.

The government did, of course, respond in part to what the Bloc Québécois was calling for by passing Bill C-24 in this House in June 2001. This amended the Criminal Code to enable law enforcement agencies to seize, block and confiscate the proceeds of organized crime.

It is important to keep in mind that organized crime is not restricted to motorcycle gangs. Any group of more than three individuals involved in criminal activity can be considered a criminal organization according to the law. These individuals can therefore be found guilty by virtue of the amendments adopted by the House of Commons in 2001 in the form of Bill C-24.

As I have indicated, however, the Bloc Québécois supported the government's Bill C-24, and as I also said did not deem it to be sufficient. We have several examples proving that the bill has not necessarily achieved its initial objective: attacking organized crime. This is why my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-242 in October 2004. This bill basically was a remedy for the government's inaction in connection with the impossibility of including the reversed burden of proof in the Criminal Code.

So, four years later, we have decided to present this motion. The ancestors of that motion were the Bloc and the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, whose major crusade has led to the motion before the House today. As my colleague from Chambly has said, to our great surprise, today the government is supporting our motion.

I recall that when Bill C-242 was introduced by my colleague, it received support from a number of members of the House, in the NDP and the Conservative Party. They all agreed that legislative amendments would be needed in order to include this reversal of the burden of proof in the Criminal Code.

What is interesting is that my colleague was the first one on a path later followed by even the federal and provincial ministers. They expressed their agreement with this approach to reverse the burden of proof in June 2004—that is, quite recently—at a federal-provincial conference where the issue was actually discussed. The provincial ministers gave their support to the approach recommended by the Bloc Québécois, not only during the 2000 election campaign, but also more concretely in Bill C-242, introduced in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Thus, all of Canada is lining up behind the Bloc Québécois. The newspaper Le Devoir had a comment on this recently, in February 2005, and I quote:

The Bloc Québécois, the first political party to propose the reversal of the burden of proof, in Bill C-242, introduced in the Commons last fall, has taken this idea to heart. “It is a suggestion that pleases the Bloc”, confirmed the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—

In this respect, it is very clear that my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has been a real trailblazer on this issue.

Why do we have to fight organized crime by adding the reversal of the burden of proof to the Criminal Code? First, because of the huge social and economic impacts.

How can we agree, in this Parliament, that people—whom I dare not describe as ordinary—the citizens of Canada and Quebec who earn their living honourably, who must pay income taxes and other taxes to the federal government and who do so fairly and honestly, see these people, these organized groups, these criminal gangs, finding all sorts of devious ways to practice what amounts to tax avoidance.

It means significant losses for the Canadian government and, in the end, for the social, education and health services that the taxpayers are entitled to receive. Meanwhile, these organized criminal gangs laugh at the world and in the faces of people who earn an honourable living, and meanwhile, we, the elected representatives, look at the situation and refuse to act.

This is nothing new. This comes as no surprise. Many countries have adopted this same approach at various levels. Some countries partially reverse the burden of proof. Others, like Australia, fully reverse it. France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Germany have decided to include this important concept in their legislation.

It is a question of social justice, individual rights and justice. Provided the motion is unanimously passed by this House in the next few days, it should inevitably lead to the tabling by the government of a bill to recognize this issue and to give effect to the motion by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Bloc Québécois.

I can assure you that we will be vigilant over the coming months and weeks, should the government decide to table a bill. We will work at the parliamentary committee and we will make sure that the very spirit of the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois—that could be passed by this house—is reflected in this bill.

Often the government opposite refuses to keep its word.

What we are hoping for today is for this motion—tabled in the House of Commons and votable—to be reflected in a bill.

Partisanship aside, the Bloc Québécois will be proud to support the bill that is tabled. We must never forget that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Bloc Québécois were trailblazers in this.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was told I had 20 minutes. I believe that the two other 10-minute speeches were to come a little later on.

This year is the 100th birthday of Einstein's theory of relativity, so I was wondering whether I was the first human being to experience the effects of that scientific phenomenon.

As I was saying, I was very proud to be part of that group in 2000. Our efforts during the election campaign brought the battle against organized crime to the forefront of the campaign issues. Because of all the other things that were going on, like Shawinagate and the sponsorship scandal, we did not have as much success with the organized crime issue. . As a result, at our request, and with pressure from the public as well, from public opinion as a whole, the government introduced Bill C-24, which amended the provisions of the Criminal Code. It was passed on June 13, 2001, with our support. We had after all indirectly instigated it. It came into effect on February 1, 2002.

Thanks to this bill, amendments to the Criminal Code have given law enforcement additional tools, for example, on the issue of the proceeds of crime. So there have been many more indictable offences that have been covered by the amendments to the Criminal Code.

Previously, only 40 crimes were categorized as organized crime offences. With the new provisions, we will be talking more about designated offences, which will encompass the indictable offences covered by the Labour Code and other federal statutes, apart from a few exceptions established by regulation.

So the broadening of the application of the provisions of the Labour Code to the proceeds of crime now enables law enforcement to seize, block and confiscate the profits that can be derived from possible criminal activity and are connected to and facilitated by organized crime.

Of course this was an important step forward, but we must go further still. That is why we are proposing in this motion another provision which should be added to the Criminal Code to address organized crime specifically. This is true in Quebec as well as, unfortunately, all over the world. So it is time for the Parliament of Canada to acquire this additional tool of reversal of the burden of proof with respect to the proceeds of crime, plus the introduction of the notion of the balance of probabilities.

As was mentioned by the previous hon. member, there was a federal-provincial-territorial meeting last January 23 and 25, at which the justice ministers discussed an amendment to the Criminal Code. There might be reason to make a minor correction to what the Liberal member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies said about certain provisions proposed by the Quebec justice minister and not by the federal justice minister, who subsequently endorsed them—I will not get into this—which were intended to reverse the burden of proof.

This proposal of the Quebec justice minister Mr. Jacques Dupuis was endorsed by all the provincial justice ministers as well as the federal minister. At the conclusion of discussions on this proposal, the ministers supported it, considering that it was necessary to facilitate confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The federal justice minister then said that it was necessary to improve the confiscation rules and that he would quickly produce amendments that were in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had been mentioned by the previous Liberal member. Therefore, in my view, including this cut-off date of May 31, 2005 in the motion will assure us that the Minister of Justice will take action on what he said in late January.

It may be important to point out also that this proposal stems both from a suggestion made by Quebec's justice minister and from Bill C-242 introduced last October by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

It is interesting to read the following about the Bloc's position on the issue of reversing the burden of proof in the February 5, 2005, edition of Le Devoir , a newspaper read by few people in English Canada unfortunately:

—The Bloc Québécois, the first political party to propose reversing the burden of proof, with its Bill C-242 introduced in the Commons last fall, has adopted the idea. “This is a proposal that the Bloc likes,” confirmed Richard Marceau, the party's justice critic. We will have to wait and see which offences will be listed in this new bill, which, according to Mr. Marceau, should be introduced in the spring by federal justice minister Irwin Cotler.

Indeed, as everyone knows, May 31, 2005 falls within that timeframe, springtime.

At present, subsection 462.37(1) of the Criminal Code places on the crown prosecutor the burden of proving that the property to be forfeited is proceeds of crime related to the offence committed. This means that the Crown has a double task: first, get the accused convicted, and second, prove that the property in the possession of this person was illegally acquired. Then, of course, steps have to be taken to obtain its forfeiture.

Thus, we see that, with the proposal to reverse the burden of proof, we will greatly facilitate the task of the Crown who, once there is no longer any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, will throw back on the accused the onus of demonstrating that they did not obtain the property or the assets with illegal money.

I would like to get back to the initiative of Quebec's justice minister by reading what he wrote in the major Quebec newspapers at the beginning of February. It would be important for people who are listening to take note of this. Concerning subsection 462.37(1), Mr. Dupuis, who is the justice minister and attorney general of Quebec, came to this conclusion:

If the proposed amendment is enacted, an accused who is convicted of an indictable offence will be required to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the property in respect of which the Attorney General is seeing forfeiture is not proceeds of crime related to the offence of which the accused has been convicted. Our proposed amendment goes further than the amendment in Bill C-242 recently tabled in the House of Commons in that it applies to all indictable offences, not only criminal organization offences.

Here, the proposal of the Quebec justice minister goes even further than what we have in Bill C-242. The federal justice minister is obviously free to go further than what we have proposed. We will obviously see the proposed provisions after studying the bill, which will be introduced before next May 31.

However, in the case of the Quebec justice minister, he proposes not just crimes related to gangs or organized crime but all criminal acts. He continues:

Despite the expertise Québec has developed and our success in offence-related property forfeiture (since 1996, property worth a total of $32 million has been forfeited)—

That is not chicken-feed, but everyone will agree that it is not very much in comparison with the proceeds of crime.

—it remains difficult to prove that a particular item of property is in fact proceeds of crime. Establishing that proof is a lengthy and painstaking process. Our proposed amendment to reverse the burden of proof will further enhance the claim that crime does not pay

It was the Quebec justice minister who wrote this in the large dailies in Quebec.

So there is evidently a broad consensus now. I can see it in this House as well as in Quebec society. While still complying with the human rights charters, the burden of proof is being reversed for criminals who have been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

The balance of probabilities is also extremely important. Ordinary citizens are not happy that criminals famous for their illegally acquired riches can avoid their responsibilities because no tax is paid on what is not declared.

One of the aberrations to which this has led is the fact that they have been entitled to legal aid in some trials. This leaves the public cynical.

With the adoption of this motion and the introduction of the following bill, we will help to reduce this cynicism and clear up the general climate in Quebec and Canada, and in the end, strengthen democracy—something that is wanted by everyone in this House.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms viable reverse onus of proof in the proceeds of crime cases.

Currently, the Criminal Code does allow for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime allows the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, upon application by the Crown, and after a conviction for a designated offence. Once culpability has been proven, the Crown must show on a balance of probabilities that the property is the proceeds of crime and that the property is connected to the crime.

If no connection between the offence for which the offender was convicted and the property is established, the judge may order the forfeiture of the property if he or she is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is proceeds of crime.

Although these provisions have been in force for quite some time and have in fact been successful to a significant degree, we need to work towards ensuring that criminals, especially those primarily motivated by financial benefit, do not profit from their ill-gotten gains.

Committing crime for financial benefit is the hallmark of organized crime. Whether these crimes involve drugs, prostitution, fraud or whatever, organized crime is fuelled by greed.

It is the proceeds of this criminal activity which allow organized criminals to commit further crime, recruit further members and facilitate generally the criminal operation of these groups. Organized crime demands specific, focussed and sustained responses.

We as a Liberal government have taken significant steps over the past few years in the fight against organized crime, first with Bill C-95, in 1997, and, most recently, in 2001, with Bill C-24.

Bill C-24, which came into force in 2002, included a simplified definition of “criminal organization”, three new criminal organization offences and tough sentencing and parole eligibility provisions.

These amendments also improved the protection from intimidation for people who play a role in the justice system and broadened law enforcement powers to forfeit the proceeds of crime and seize property that was used in a crime.

This clearly demonstrates that this Liberal government is committed to combating organized crime.

These and other tools found in the Criminal Code are being used by law enforcement and prosecutors in the fight against organized crime.

Despite significant legislative activity in this area recently, we need to evaluate whether prosecutors have all the necessary tools to advance on this front, as organized crime groups are now becoming increasingly sophisticated, complex and adaptive in their criminal ventures.

Clearly, this assessment should examine whether a reverse onus in proceeds of crime cases would contribute to the disruption of criminal organizations. In my view it would.

As this matter advances, it is important to have the views of the provinces on this issue. In many cases, their prosecutors are the ones bringing the proceeds of crime applications, given their authority to prosecute most Criminal Code offences.

As a government, we have taken a step in the right direction. In January 2005, federal, provincial and territorial ministers for justice discussed proposals to change the Criminal Code to create a reverse onus for the proceeds of crime regime.

According to joint news release issued, and I quote:

All Ministers agreed that the ability to obtain the forfeiture of proceeds of crime is needed and the federal justice minister said he intends to move forward as quickly as possible with changes that meet charter requirements.

The federal-provincial-territorial forum is useful in gauging provincial support on issues such as these. Based on the outcome from this meeting, it appears there is general support for the need to advance a reverse onus provision that is within the parameters of the Charter.

The requirement that any advancement in this area be viable from a charter perspective is a very important one. A balance must be struck in crafting a reverse onus scheme which represents a useful tool for prosecutors, over and above what is now available under our current proceeds of crime scheme, while doing so within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

This is a very important consideration as charter viability will ensure that our prosecutors will have this tool, and that it will be effective to take away criminal profits for years to come.

This motion is directed at ensuring that criminals are not permitted to financially or materially benefit from the commission of criminal offences. It is one which is targeted at fighting crime in the most effective way—by taking the profit out of it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Bloc's justice critic for introducing this motion and working so diligently to ensure that it reflects the wishes of all the parties in the House.

I must say that, in the history of the Bloc Québécois, the effective and intelligent struggle is constitutional, as our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue has demonstrated. It must be said right away—and I will return to this as well—that it is a matter not just of an effective and intelligent fight against organized crime but of a fight that should be consistent with the constitutional guarantees, of which, at the top of the list, may be found the right to be presumed innocent, with all that implies in procedural terms, as the Supreme Court did.

I was saying that, in the history of the Bloc Québécois, we were able—whether it was my old colleague, Michel Bellehumeur, or other colleagues, such as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—to take an interest very early in the history of our party in the struggle against organized crime. We will all recall that very publicly. Of course, people a little older than I will no doubt remember the CIOC. There was a bit of a lull in public opinion. However, what catalyzed a heightened awareness of the extent to which organized crime was threatening our communities was certainly the car bomb attack on August 9, 1995, ten years ago already, in Adam St. in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, killing young Daniel Desrochers. We know that this meaningless attack was related to a motorcycle gang war, in which there had been 147 deaths and 150 attempted murders.

These were important issues in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and even 2000. They were so important, in fact, that the Bloc Québécois devoted one of its opposition days in 2000 to the formation of a special committee of the Standing Committee on Justice, on which I sat along with Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, who has been elevated to the bench. We are all familiar with his talent and persistence. At the time, 13 recommendations were made, all related to the issue of gangs.

My colleague just recalled Bill C-24, but we must first remember that it took three years before we got an anti-gang law. I must say that the Bloc Québécois played an extremely important part in this. The first anti-gang act, which had been Bill C-95, did not work. Why not? Because five people who had committed five crimes punishable by five years in prison, in other words serious crimes, were needed.

Law enforcement agencies were telling us that in the branches in 1995, 1996, 1997, there were, for the Hell's Angels for example, 38 chapters in Canada. Young people with no criminal record were being recruited. It was clear that the organized crime offence in the Criminal Code could not be used.

There were all kinds of provisions. In fact, about a dozen laws had been passed to fight organized crime. Among others, there was a witness protection program. In addition, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—he will correct me if I am wrong—had sent a message to the Association of Chiefs of Police. He had introduced a bill to withdraw the $1,000 bill. If I recall correctly, it was in early 2000, 2001, 2002.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hochelaga.

I want to thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for this motion, which raises awareness of the extreme importance of the issue we are debating today. This issue deals with reversing the burden of proof for criminals who have been found guilty.

I must say at the outset that I am a lawyer and that I practised criminal law as defence counsel. Therefore, I have a very good understanding of this issue, which has been a sensitive issue in the organized crime community for a very long time.

The Bloc Québécois has put a lot of pressure and made numerous requests to bring the federal government to pass legislation to fight organized crime, which has been present in our country for way too long. In Quebec, in particular, we saw unfortunate events, horrible events, that made the public realize that enough was enough and we had to put a stop to that. That is why Bill C-24, amending the Criminal Code, was brought forward and passed. Then there was section 426.3 of the Criminal Code. I will not go into any details, but many of my colleagues and myself have made arguments under this section on several occasions, saying that it was incumbent upon the Crown to demonstrate that the offence was linked to organized crime. It was indeed quite a burden.

Not only was it necessary to demonstrate the individual's guilt with regard to the evidence against him and the crimes of which he or she was accused, but the Crown also had to prove that the assets obtained were linked to organized crime, which meant that there was a direct connection between these assets and the offence for which a guilty verdict was rendered. The burden of proof was very difficult for the Crown in those cases.

We believe that this is a very good bill, which should be brought before Parliament, and that this motion should be expedited so as to put an end to the Crown's obligation to assume a burden which, quite often, is very heavy. Especially since the motion tabled by my colleague, which I invite the House to adopt unanimously, is recommended by all the attorneys general of Canada and the justice ministers of all the provinces, including Quebec. We believe that the Minister of Justice of Canada would be well advised to table a bill on this subject promptly. That is why we are proposing this motion today.

I want to stress that the motion and the bill that might result from it are closely related to the offences of organized crime. Obviously we could not ask to have it apply to all crimes. It has to be related to organized crime.

I would draw attention to the fact that organized crime does not simply mean crimes committed by motorcycle gangs or groups of that ilk. Very often a criminal organization is very very difficult to dismantle.

A criminal organization, within the meaning of the Criminal Code, is three persons who together facilitate or commit criminal offences. So this must be demonstrated before one can say that a person is charged with organized crime. Quite often, alas, the Crown withdraws that charge because it had or will have difficulties proving the link between the three individuals, the link they would have had to commit the crimes.

Now, quite often, when the Crown manages to prove that these persons have committed crimes and so form a criminal group within the meaning of the Criminal Code, the assets seized—since very often a huge amount will be seized—must on a balance of probabilities constitute proceeds of crime obtained in connection with that designated offence. Hence this is a burden of proof that is extremely difficult, if not almost impossible very often, for the Crown to demonstrate.

The objective of this motion is to force the government to table a bill to stamp out organized crime and in particular money laundering. I emphasize that an individual who is found guilty and convicted will not be at the end of his pains, for he will have to demonstrate to the court that these assets were acquired legitimately.

Allow me to emphasize this. It is not the purpose of this motion and this bill to limit the presumption of innocence, which is extremely important. In our criminal law in Canada and Quebec, anyone appearing before the court is presumed innocent until the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime with which he is charged.

So this motion, which I hope will lead to a bill, would have the proposed reversal of the burden of proof apply only once the accused has been found guilty of a criminal offence. It is very important that this take place only at the sentencing stage, so that it does not violate the principle of presumption of innocence. Of course, I am offering you the example of a case that occurred recently right here in the Outaouais region, in spring 2001. Individuals were arrested all across Quebec, who were suspected of being members of an organized gang—what we call it is not important—whose seized assets were valued in the tens of millions of dollars.

The bill we want to see introduced in Parliament by our Minister of Justice would ensure that, once found guilty, the accused could no longer benefit from being presumed innocent because they have been found guilty. The burden of proof will be reversed and they will have to demonstrate that their assets that have been seized were not obtained with drug money, for instance.

That is what we could have used in the cases or events that have come up since 2001. However, the Crown has used plea bargaining to make sure individuals plead guilty, saying, “If you plead guilty to this offence, we will drop the gangsterism charge and allow you to recover some of your property”. Under the current motion and the resulting bill, this would be impossible. The onus will rest entirely on the individual.

I will conclude by saying that when the bill is passed—which I hope will happen as soon as possible—I call on Parliament and Canada, through its Minister of Justice and international relations, to tell the world that we have joined Australia, Austria, France, New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom in sending a message to criminals, “Be careful, if you want to do business in Canada, you will pay a high price”.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I also rise today to speak to the Bloc motion encouraging the government to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof in proceeds of crime cases. This would require accused, once found guilty, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained from proceeds of crime.

The underlying message behind this motion is that criminals, especially those motivated by profit, should not financially benefit from their criminal activity. We agree.

This motion, and the message underlying it, are consistent with the government's recent legislative, operational and international initiatives aimed at disrupting and deterring criminal organizations in Canada.

We took a significant step in the fight against organized crime in 1997, with amendments to the Criminal Code through Bill C-95—which created the indictable offence of participation in a criminal organization and provided law enforcement with additional significant investigative powers.

Two years later, in 1999, amendments to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act barred those convicted of offences related to organized crime from access to accelerated parole review. While, that same year, amendments to the Competition Act and other acts created new offences for deceptive telemarketing and defined these crimes as enterprise crimes subject to the proceeds of crime regime.

Further, in 2000 the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act was enacted and provided for mandatory reporting of suspicious financial transactions and created the Financial Transactions Report Analysis Centre of Canada to receive and manage this reported financial information.

Most significantly in the fight against organized crime, the government brought forward amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts through Bill C-24, which came into force in 2002.

Bill C-24 provided substantial new measures directly targeting criminal organizations, including a simplified definition of “criminal organization”, three new criminal organization offences separately targeting those participating in or contributing to the activities of a criminal organization, those who commit indictable offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, and an offence directed at all of the leadership levels in criminal organizations. Under these provisions, penalties range from a maximum of five years imprisonment for participation, to life imprisonment for leaders. It is important to also note that consecutive sentencing applies to all three of these offences.

Bill C-24 also improved the protection from intimidation for people who play a role in the justice system, and broadened law enforcement powers to forfeit the proceeds of crime and seize property that was used in a crime.

Finally, amendments were made to the Criminal Code in 2004 through Bill C-13 in order to enable investigators to better obtain documents or data from third parties through judicial production orders. This investigative tool is now available in respect of all criminal offences and is expected to be of particular assistance in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

In addition to the legislative measures that were passed and previously mentioned, the Government of Canada has taken major operational steps to fight organized crime.

Of particular relevance is the creation of Integrated Proceeds of Crime Units in Canada, first launched in 1996. These units are found across Canada and are staffed with federal, provincial and municipal police officers, Justice Canada Crown counsel, customs officers, federal tax investigators, and forensic accountants. They support other law enforcement units by undertaking the investigation and prosecution of the proceeds of crime aspects of organized crime.

They also support other anti-organized crime initiatives, and help to fulfill Canada's international commitments, particularly those set by the multilateral Financial Action Task Force in which Canada plays a leading role.

Canada is also working internationally to combat organized crime. In this regard, in 1997 Canada and the United States established a Cross-Border Crime Forum to strengthen cooperation and to focus law enforcement efforts on such issues as cross-border crimes, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, and high-tech crime.

In addition, Canada played a key role within the United Nations in the development of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, signed in December 2000, providing countries with a shared framework to enhance international cooperation.

It is clear that the Government of Canada has taken many deliberate and effective legislative, operational and international steps in the fight against organized crime. It is this proven commitment, giving the tools to our dedicated law enforcement and Crown prosecutors, which seeks to ensure that criminal organizations in Canada are disrupted, deterred, and dismantled.

Organized criminals commit crime predominantly for monetary benefit. These financial gains sustain these criminal groups and facilitate their growth, both in numbers and influence.

It is for this reason that I support the development of a charter compliant reverse onus in proceeds of crime cases.

With this enhancement of the law, coupled with the other existing tools outlined previously, we would be in a better position to thwart the plans of criminals motivated by material gain or profit in Canada.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, today it is my great pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by my friend, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Before I begin, however, I too would like to pay tribute—unusual in this House, but hon. members from all parties have done so—to the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

This motion appears to have the approval of all parties. That too is unusual in the House of Commons, although not a first, since it happened earlier when there was a motion on the Holocaust. We should also remember that the hon. member who is proposing this bill is the same one who proposed a bill to eliminate $1,000 bills, also intended to thwart the activities of organized crime and prevent money laundering. Moreover, this is the same hon. member who proposed a bill or a motion concerning the appointment of judges. That issue was studied in committee. We can also point out that it was the Bloc Québécois that introduced the forerunner to today's topic, which was Bill C-24, to specifically recognize organized crime in the Criminal Code, through the work of my former colleague, the former member for Berthier, Michel Bellehumeur. Today we have this motion before us.

I would like to digress for a moment to go over the three or four points I have just mentioned. People listening to us, and our colleagues here in the House, if they have a somewhat open mind, can see that even if an idea comes from the Bloc Québécois, it may be quite sensible. Too often, the Canadian public and our Liberal and Conservative colleagues cover their ears and say that if it comes from the Bloc it is no good.

Today, happily, there is none of that attitude. And so I hope that this will get our colleagues thinking about other topics we might bring forward, and how even if the sovereignists introduce these topics and they are not related to sovereignty, but to society, they may be of interest to the entire community. That is another reason I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The motion he proposed to the House this morning reads as follows, since I believe it is important to refer to the wording of the motion before debating and discussing it:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to betterfight crime, the government should introduce a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden ofproof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused,once found guilty of a serious offence, to demonstrate on the balance ofprobabilities that their assets were not obtained using theproceeds of their criminal activities.

The Bloc Québécois has been pressuring the federal government for a number of years to bring in effective legislative measures against organized crime. As I have already said, Bill C-24, which was passed in 2001 with the support of the Bloc, and came into force in February 2002, is one of the bills we supported in the battle against organized crime. Thanks to Bill C-24, the provisions relating to the proceeds of crime set out in part XII.2 of the Criminal Code are applicable to virtually all criminal acts.

That was one step in the right direction in the battle against organized crime. But during the election campaign the Bloc Québécois continued to reflect on ways to move further in the battle against organized crime and on behalf of safer communities. It therefore felt that another amendment was required to specifically target organized crime in Quebec and Canada. As a result, on October 28, 2004 our colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-242, to reverse the burden of proof, requiring a person found guilty of an offence related to organized crime—and that point is important—to prove on the balance of probabilities that his assets were lawfully and legitimately acquired.

Following this reflection process and the introduction of this private members' bill, Le Devoir wrote the following about the Bloc Québécois and its position:

—the Bloc Québécois, the first political party to propose reversing the burden of proof, with its Bill C-242 introduced in the Commons last fall, has adopted the idea.

At the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting, other stakeholders got behind the idea. The other parties eventually came around.

“This is a proposal that the Bloc likes,” confirmed the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The Bloc was recognized as the first political party to have put this idea forward in the House of Commons. The idea was discussed at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting at which the justice ministers agreed in principle with the idea presented to them.

When we take a closer look at the motion from the point of view of organization and procedures—the idea has been put out there—we can see that it is relatively detailed. Nevertheless, it will be refined in committee to eliminate any concerns or irritants with respect to protecting the presumption of innocence as well as the safety of the accused. The idea is definitely not to have everybody go before a court and tell the judges and defence lawyers how their assets were acquired. So, in committee, we will refine the proposal and make sure that it will be respectful of the rights and freedoms of the individuals to whom this bill does not apply.

Let us get into a little more detail. Since it is important to respect the presumption of innocence of the accused under the Charter, it is essential that, before any reversal of onus take place, the Crown first prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. This means that the accused has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Here are the main points that the Bloc Québécois would like to see in a future government bill on the reversal of the burden of proof. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, first, the accused is guilty of an indictable offence and, second, that he benefited directly or indirectly from an asset, benefit or advantage because he committed the offence for which he is found guilty. We could add that, with a few exceptions, the accused must belong to a criminal organization. Once these three conditions have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused would have to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the assets which the Crown wants to forfeit were obtained in a legitimate fashion.

Currently, here is how things work: an accused—as the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel so aptly showed—can file a tax return which indicates that his annual income is around $19,000, but he can still own a lavish property along a lake, a condominium in Florida and another one in the West Indies, a Corvette and a boat, and everything is just fine.

If the accused is found guilty, the courts must prove that he got his assets illegally. Under the motion now before us, which reverses the burden of proof, the contrary would happen, in that once the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a crime and, with a few exceptions, of being a member of a criminal organization, he will be the one who has to prove that his assets were obtained legally and legitimately.

This suggestion by the Bloc Québécois which, as I said, seems to enjoy the support of the House, is a precedent in Canada, but not in the world. A number of countries, including Australia, Austria, France, New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom have already legislated in that sense, to various degrees, and included in their legislation the reversal of the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime. The financial action task force on money laundering, which is an international organization, proposed a similar measure in 2003.

In conclusion, this is a motion on which there is a consensus and one which would benefit Canadian society by making our communities safer and by impeding even more the activities of criminal organizations.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles deserves to be praised for his motion and so does the House which, I hope, will support this initiative and act quickly, so that it can be implemented without delay.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to introduce at third reading Bill C-39, which provides for $41 billion in new funding for provinces and territories under the ten year plan to strengthen health care.

Canadians are justly proud of their social programs and are determined to see them maintained and improved. In particular, Canada's publicly funded, universal health care system stands as a clear testament to its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity for all Canadians.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of providing growing and predictable funding for Canada's health care system to ensure its vitality. It also recognizes the importance of improving transparency and accountability of health care spending.

After all, Canadians want to know that their tax dollars are being spent wisely.

In short, the government is committed to strengthening Canada's publicly funded health care system. It is committed to working with the provinces and territories to make sure that happens. As the Prime Minister has said, Canadians want solutions to health care problems, problems in their communities, problems that affect their families. Canadians also want to know that the health care system will be able to provide the services they need in a timely fashion. They also want to know that the health care system is secure for future generations.

Governments recognize the need to strengthen our health care system. We understand the challenge. It is a challenge that falls to us and we must act.

Last fall, federal, provincial and territorial governments all signed the 10 year plan to strengthen health care. Bill C-39 would implement the federal commitment supporting this plan by providing $41 billion in new federal funding for provinces and territories for health.

Indeed, the 10 year plan will strengthen ongoing federal health support provided through the Canada health transfer, or CHT, as well as to address wait times to ensure that Canadians have timely access to essential health services and to provide additional funding for diagnostic and medical equipment.

Before I outline the details of this ambitious new plan, I would like to first provide some history of recent federal health care funding in Canada.

In September 2000, hon. members will recall an agreement by first ministers for an action plan to renew our health care system. In support of that agreement, the federal government invested $23.4 billion through the Canada health and social transfer and targeted spending, including funding for medical equipment, to accelerate and broaden health renewal and reform.

Drawing on that agreement, first ministers met again in February 2003, committing to the first ministers accord on health care renewal. In response to the important reform and reporting objectives it contained, the 2003 budget increased federal support for health care by $34.8 billion over five years. It also contained an additional payment of $2 billion contingent on funds being available in 2003-04.

In January 2004, the Prime Minister announced that an additional $2 billion would be provided to the provinces and territories. This brought the total increase in federal support over the five year period of the 2003 health accord to $36.8 billion. The majority of this funding was provided to the provinces and territories through increased transfer payments, including $16 billion over five years through the new health reform transfer; $14 billion, including the $2 billion in additional funding, for increases to health and social transfers; and $1.5 billion for diagnostic and medical equipment.

The remaining $5.3 billion was allocated to meet other commitments made under the 2003 health accord, notably increased funding for health programs for first nations and Inuit; the creation of a compassionate care benefit under employment insurance; support for research hospitals; and improved health care technology and pharmaceuticals management.

The Government of Canada's investments over the period covered by the health accord, and its other investments in health and social programs, were implemented as part of a long term legislated framework of predictable and growing support for provinces and territories that includes both cash and tax transfers.

I would like to move on to the 10 year plan to strengthen health care. Last September the Prime Minister and premiers signed a 10 year plan to strengthen health care. As I have already mentioned, the plan will provide $41 billion in new health care funding over the next decade. It also illustrates what we are capable of achieving when the federal, provincial and territorial governments work together toward a common goal.

At the heart of the 10 year plan is the commitment for stable and increased funding starting with immediate funding in 2004-05, to provide an additional $1 billion in this year through the CHT as well as an additional $2 billion in 2005-06.

These investments lead me to the second step, which is the establishment of a new $19 billion base for the Canada health transfer, beginning in 2005-06. The new and higher base level of $19 billion for the Canada health transfer includes $500 million in targeted funding for home care and catastrophic drug coverage, clear priorities for many Canadians.

The plan also proposes a 6% escalator to the Canada health transfer, effective in 2006-07, which will ensure predictable and stable growth in federal transfer support, an unprecedented move to ensure predictable and stable growth in support from the federal government. This commitment fully satisfies the recommendations of the Romanow report on the future of health care in Canada. In fact, this commitment exceeds the recommendations of that report.

Just what action does the 10 year plan take to improve our health care system? It makes investments in these areas: reducing waiting times and improving access, which I know are big desires in my constituency; providing funding for medical and diagnostic equipment; and improving access to home care and catastrophic drug coverage.

I want to talk in more detail about reducing waiting times. What united all the first ministers was a commitment to a meaningful reduction in wait times for health care services. The plan provides funding of $5.5 billion over 10 years for wait times reduction so that Canadians can see tangible progress, particularly in key areas such as cancer, heart treatment, diagnostic imaging, joint replacements and sight restoration.

It is important to mention that the government recognizes that not all provinces and territories are in the same situation regarding the implementation of their wait times reduction strategies. Funding of $4.25 billion from the total of $5.5 billion will be provided through a third-party trust. Therefore, as part of the 10 year plan, provinces and territories will have the flexibility to draw on the funding according to their individual priorities in meeting their wait times reduction commitments.

The funding can be used according to the respective priorities of each province and territory, such as clearing backlogs, training and hiring more health care professionals, building capacity for regional centres of excellence, expanding appropriate ambulatory and community care programs, and tools to manage wait times.

Beginning in 2009-10, $250 million will be provided through an annual transfer to provinces and territories in support of health care related human resources and tools to manage wait times.

Now I will talk about medical and diagnostic equipment, which is also very important in my riding. No health care system would be effective without medical and diagnostic equipment to support it.

That is why, as an integral part of a 10 year plan, the government will provide to provinces and territories a further $500 million for diagnostic and medical equipment in 2004-05. This funding builds on previous investments in diagnostic and medical equipment under the 2000 and 2003 health accords. It will help the provinces and territories continue to improve access to the diagnostic services their citizens need.

Now I want to talk briefly about home care and catastrophic drug coverage. Access to home care and catastrophic drug coverage is a concern for Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, the new $19 billion base level for the Canada health transfer includes an amount of $500 million, which is specifically aimed at addressing these concerns.

It is important to mention that the first ministers were committed to improving access to home and community care services and catastrophic drug coverage. Hon. members will appreciate the importance of improving the quality of life for many Canadians and ensuring that no Canadian suffers undue financial hardship in accessing needed drug therapies.

Now I will talk briefly about reporting to Canadians on these expenditures. As I mentioned earlier, Canadians want to know that their tax dollars are in fact supporting tangible improvements in the health care system. That is why Bill C-39 contains a provision for a parliamentary review of progress made in implementing the 10 year plan.

What I have described is not all the funding that is available to the provinces and the territories. In the debate about federal health funding to the provinces and territories, it is important to remember that this is not their only source of funds from the federal government. For example, equalization payments, which have been in existence since 1957, address horizontal fiscal disparities among provinces by ensuring that less prosperous provinces can provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Hon. members will recall that last fall federal officials met with their provincial and territorial partners as part of the government's commitment to increase equalization and territorial formula funding by more than $33 billion over the next 10 years. Bill C-24, which is currently before Parliament, sets out this new framework.

This represents a fundamental reform of these programs and establishes the foundation for our commitment to bring greater predictability to the federal government's payments to the less prosperous provinces in support of key public services.

The $33 billion committed to equalization and territorial formula financing payments, when combined with the $41 billion ten year plan to strengthen health care, will result in federal transfers to the provinces and territories of $74 billion. This significant increase in federal transfers illustrates the government's commitment to provide stable and growing funding to provinces and territories.

Although the 10 year plan to strengthen health care makes it clear that money alone cannot sustain health care, the government fully understands the importance of stable and predictable funding to the provinces and territories in support of health and social priorities. In short, the $41 billion 10 year plan represents the best of what the Canadian federation can accomplish and underscores how cooperative federalism has built a country with a standard of living that is the envy of the world.

Before closing, I would emphasize the importance of the bill receiving passage by the end of this fiscal year so that the provinces and the territories can have access to 2004-05 funding and begin to plan for the future. I therefore ask that hon. members continue to provide the bill with timely consideration.

Supply

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member's support of the motion is based on the premise of failure, that somehow the negotiations which are currently going on with the auto sector are doomed to fail.

He asked about a backup plan. Presumably when we negotiate, we negotiate in good faith. When we negotiate in good faith, we indicate the target that we have set, that we want the auto industry to meet it and that we are going to be able to monitor that target.

If in fact there were failure, then I would presume we would have to go to the next step. However, the fact that this motion is before the House suggests somehow that there will be failure.

We have more confidence in our negotiators. We have more confidence in the fact that the industry, which has signed 14 MOUs over the years, is prepared to work with the government. Members have talked about major contributors to parties. I guess they have not heard of Bill C-24. I guess they do not know what the workers in the auto sector clearly have indicated. As far as I am concerned we want to have jobs and a strong environment. If they cannot live with that, that is their choice.

What kind of negotiations is the member looking at when in fact we have set a target and we are asking the industry to meet it?

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-24.

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

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to take part in the debate today, dealing with equalization. As we know, equalization has been a long term program of our federal, provincial and territorial governments. It is enshrined in our Constitution. Last year it was up for debate. With the arrangements that were made between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, federal officials and their provincial and territorial counterparts, today Bill C-24 arrives in the House at report stand and third reading stage.

We have had a number of meetings with provincial and territorial ministers. With those, our federal government is doing its best to work out programs in the interest of all Canadians. We have concluded a health care accord, and soon we will receive a bill in the House that will deal with health care arrangements.

The equalization arrangements are being debating today, after coming back from the Standing Committee on Finance. All parties involved in the meetings of the finance committee have given great support to the program and to Bill C-24.

We also have been negotiating with the provinces, dealing with child care and communities programs. I can assure the House that our federal officials, our ministers and Prime Minister work diligently and faithfully to try to conclude arrangements for the betterment of all Canadians.

I am a bit concerned, though, when I hear some people refer in the House and across the country to have and have not provinces. Really, there are no have not provinces. However, certain provinces within our federation have more capital, better assets and better programs and have the fiscal capacity to deal with their issues better than others. In terms of this arrangement and as of this date two provinces do not receive equalization payments while eight provinces and territories receive some response from these arrangements.

The fiscal imbalance to which some people refer is not due to the people living in those provinces, but more to the economy of this great nation of ours. Many areas of Canada buy products that are manufactured in certain provinces. They look to other provinces for their oil reserves. They look to the natural resources of all provinces and within that context, they attempt to make amicable arrangements by which the wealth of a nation can be shared.

It is important that our provinces and territories have room to negotiate and, above all, room to plan their activities over the next period of time. The bill gives an opportunity for provinces to plan their future activities and programs.

There is a guaranteed growth track within the bill and within its arrangements. The approach includes five key elements: a new minimum funding floor of $10 billion for equalization and a $1.9 billion for TFF for the year 2004-05; complete protection for provinces and territories against overall and individual declines in payments in that year; a level of $10.9 billion for equalization and $2 billion in TFF in 2005-06; a growth rate guaranteed at 3.5% until 2009; and an independent panel to advise on the allocation among provinces and territories.

Over the next 10 years and subject to review in 2009-10, the new framework will provide $33 billion more in equalization and TFF payments to provinces and territories. This is compared with the annual entitlements for both equalization and TFF, according to the estimates in the February 2004 budget and according to the official October report, of $12.5 billion in 2009-10, an increase of 42% over the next five years.

Again, starting in 2005 the Government of Canada will establish a legislated financial framework for equalization and TFF with fixed overall payment levels that provide predictable and growing funding. In 2005-06 funding levels will be set at $10.9 billion for equalization and $2 billion for TFF, the highest levels ever reached by these programs. Both amounts will grow at a rate of 3.5%.

In addition the Government of Canada will also launch a review by an independent panel of experts on how the legislated equalization and TFF levels should be allocated among provinces and territories in the next year. Provinces and territories have been invited to appoint two members to the panel.

This review, among other things, will evaluate current practices for measuring fiscal disparities among provinces and territories. It will examine alternative approaches, such as those based on aggregate macroeconomic indicators, for example, the GDP, disposable income, or expenditure needs. It will review the evolution of fiscal disparities among provinces and the cost of providing services in the territories, to help governments and citizens evaluate the overall level of support for equalization and TFF. It will advise whether the Government of Canada should establish a permanent independent body to advise it on the allocation of equalization and TFF within the framework of legislated levels.

The Government of Canada, meanwhile, will remain fully concerned about accountability and responsibility for all decisions and will continue to consult extensively with provinces and territories.

The mandate of the panel is an advisory one and the federal government will make decisions based on advice received from the panel and the provincial and territorial governments. This expert panel will report back by the end of 2005 in time to provide advice on equalization and TFF for 2006-07.

Above all there is a guarantee of a complete floor protection. The framework will provide a floor protection to every province and territory to ensure that entitlements for 2004-05 are no lower than the levels forecast in the 2004 budget.

The effect of these various programs that we are arranging, in fact the programs in terms of health care and equalization, will provide a cumulative increase of $74 billion over 10 years compared to the annual levels estimated in the February 2004 budget.

Finally, I would like to allude to my own province of New Brunswick, which is very happy with the arrangements. The premier has expressed his approval and the fact that he is able to continue to provide new programs for people in New Brunswick.

According to the data that we have before us, the province of New Brunswick will receive $1.181 million on a total of $9 billion in equalization in this fiscal year. It is about $1,572 per person. For New Brunswick it will mean about $152 million in additional payments and with it, New Brunswick over the next 10 years will receive more than $800 million in additional health transfers.

I am very happy with the bill. I hope it will proceed at high speed through the House and that we as Canadians, and especially as New Brunswickers, will receive the benefits of the new equalization program as we approach the next taxation year.

Taxation

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, presently before us is Bill C-24. Included in the bill is the creation of an expert panel to advise the government on the anomalies the current system presently produces. There is no system in the world that is perfect. Certainly the government and all governments can take advice from that panel as to what would be the appropriate weighting and recognition of revenue sources.

Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

I listened intently to my colleague from the NDP. I agree with my friend from the Bloc who said that she raised some very pertinent points in relation to the whole matter of equalization. There are a lot of concerns about equalization. When we hear the word equalization, we think of equality and everybody being treated equally. We know this is not the case.

I was intrigued with one of the comments she made. She talked about the disarray leading up to the conference last fall and that a lot of provinces were not pleased with the final outcome. The parliamentary secretary yelled, “read the communiqué”. There is no doubt about the fact that at the end of any federal-provincial conference when an agreement is arrived at, even though it is one into which people might have been forced or even though it is one with which people do not totally agree, everybody comes out singing from the same hymn book. Reading a communiqué at the end of any of these meetings does not paint the picture.

What we should do is roll back the time to the weeks preceding the federal-provincial conference that dealt with equalization. Going into this conference, one wondered whether an arrangement or agreement could be reached at all. It was almost like anticipating what would happen when the NHL Players' Association and the owners got together. We had no idea. Everybody sat there hoping for an agreement so we could get back to some semblance of sanity on Saturday nights in Canada. Of course, it did not happen.

The provinces did get an agreement, but we certainly cannot compare them as apples to apples. The hockey players and the association can afford to push a hard bargain and wait until they get an agreement. The owners can do the same thing. In a case like this, the federal government might be able to sit back, wait and force an agreement, but the provinces could not. They had to accept the best deal that was offered.

Getting back to the communiqué, communiqués are very colourful. They can cover up a multitude of mistakes made during negotiations. That brings me to this morning.

This morning my province of Newfoundland and Labrador signed a very historic agreement, an agreement which will give my province, at least for a while, 100% of its share, not the total benefits from offshore which equates to about 47% of the total. The federal government and the country generally still take over half the benefits that come directly from revenue sharing on the offshore development.

This past fall before the conference on equalization all of us remember the concern expressed by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We remember the concern expressed by many members in the House, most of them on this side, that the agreement might never happen, that the signing, which we saw today, might never occur.

During the meetings on equalization and health care funding, the premier of my province, Mr. Williams, had to walk out of them because he was so frustrated with the way the Prime Minister had dealt with the commitments he had made. Not only did he walk out to draw attention to the mistreatment of the province by the government opposite, for a period of time the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador lowered the Canadian flag on all provincial buildings.

During that period, we saw almost consternation from the government opposite. It said to the people of the country that this was terrible. It said that if Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to negotiate a deal on the offshore revenues, the first thing it would have to do was raise the flags. Until then the government would not talk to a province that did not fly the federal flag over provincial buildings. We all listened to that. I thought of my colleagues to the left. They do not fly the Canadian flag over any of the provincial buildings, yet nobody receives more attention from the federal government than my colleagues to the left, the Bloc.

I have no problem with that. The Bloc can do whatever it wants. However, for a prime minister to say to any province that it has to fly the Canadian flag or the government will not talk it, or for him to close his eyes to another province, is not the way Confederation works. We are supposed to be in the Confederation. We are supposed to receive equal treatment from the government.

This brings me back to equalization and this morning, when the Prime Minister had the audacity to stand in front of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will give him credit for coming through, signing the agreement and delivering on the commitment he made. He said, “I made a promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have lived up to that commitment”. How hypocritical. The only reason the Prime Minister was in Newfoundland and Labrador this morning, signing an agreement with the province, was he forced into it by the province, first, and second, by the people on this side of the House, not on that side of the House.

The leader of the Conservative Party put into the election platform the commitment to the provinces that they would be the prime beneficiaries of the revenues from non-renewable resources. We are not talking about a promise thrown out in the middle of an election. We are talking about a solid, written commitment in our election document, our platform. That forced the Prime Minister into a corner. There were hurried late night meetings in Newfoundland and Labrador. He was told by his people there that either he made that commitment or the Liberals would be wiped out. At seven o'clock Saturday morning, he called the premier to say that he had accepted his offer.

Then when the Liberals won the election, we saw them back off. They were procrastinating. It was basically blackmail by the Minister of Natural Resources, who came in with an inferior deal and said that the province could either take it or leave it. Today, the people who did everything to keep us from getting that deal were praised by the Prime Minister as he took credit for delivering on his promise. He delivered on it because he had absolutely no choice. That is what is wrong our country, when we talk about equalization.

The member from the NDP is entirely right that provinces accepted a deal simply because there was no choice. It was shoved down their throats, up until now. Today turns things around. Never again will provinces, because they will follow the lead of Newfoundland and Labrador, have the federal government shove fiscal arrangements down their throats. From now on we will look for a fair share and if we follow the policies of this party, we can be sure to get it.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this chance to speak to a very important piece of legislation. Bill C-24 is about one of the fundamental defining features of this country. It is a matter of serious debate for all of us in the House.

One would think based on the parliamentary secretary's presentation that this is just a technical matter, that Parliament is just a rubber stamp and let us get on with the job. Certainly that is the way in which the bill has been handled all the way through the various steps of legislative scrutiny in the House of Commons. It is being presented to us today as a done deal, something the provinces have agreed to and therefore Parliament must simply give its blessing and let us get on with it. That approach would be doing a great disservice to Canadians if we did not elucidate for them the serious flaws with respect to this whole process, and the serious mistakes made by the federal government throughout this process of resolving the equalization formula.

This is not a matter of simply dotting the i 's and crossing the t 's; this is a matter that goes to the very heart of what this country is all about. If we make a mistake at this level and we do not address the root causes of unease and concern that are bubbling away below the surface, then we are asking for trouble. We are asking for serious threats to the very fabric of this nation and to the constitutional solidity of our country.

Today is a most interesting day for us to be debating third reading of Bill C-24, for having Parliament finalize debate on this legislation. Today is the day that our Prime Minister will be officially signing the side arrangements made with the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Those deals run in the billions of dollars and were negotiated after the government bungled the entire process around equalization. Interestingly enough, we are here today to finalize Bill C-24 on such an occasion. This draws to everyone's attention just how flawed the process has been and just how wrong-headed our Prime Minister has been throughout this entire sorry saga in the history of Canada.

I want to quote from a CP article which appeared in March 2004 in a Winnipeg newspaper and probably in other newspapers across Canada:

Ottawa's equalization transfers--and its practice of special deals for some jurisdictions--could divide the provinces, says Manitoba's finance minister. “[It] could be perceived as a divide-and-conquer tactic”, Greg Selinger said in an interview. “If you keep doing specific, one-off side deals, even though each of them may have merit, you're really avoiding the overall issue”.

That says it all. That is exactly the kind of dilemma and the problems we are faced with today because of the lack of leadership by the government of the day. Here we are trying to finalize an equalization arrangement that will try to satisfy all provinces while the federal government at this very minute is signing side deals with a couple of provinces because it could not fix the problem at the very outset and deal with it appropriately.

Exactly what was prophesied is happening. Other provinces are asking where their side deals are. Saskatchewan has every right to ask, “How do we get in on this side arrangement dealing with natural resources?” New Brunswick is clamouring at the door. Ontario is questioning the whole process, and rightfully the province of Quebec has said that the whole process stinks and is tantamount to very serious divisions across the country, as if we do not have enough divisions already, as if we do not have enough wounds to heal and enough issues to deal with to ensure that the country is working together on a solid footing in the interests of all of its citizens.

It is a day of irony. We would be remiss in this debate if we did not point to the root of the problem and try to convince the government to use this opportunity in our history in terms of a minority Parliament, with such willingness to cooperate on all sides of the House, to reassess the damage that has been done and to commit itself to a much more positive and productive response to this situation.

As my colleague from the Bloc has done, I would also like to emphasize the importance of equalization. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the equalization process in terms of maintaining the Canadian identity. This is fundamental to who we are. It is part of our philosophy that says from each of us according to our ability to each of us according to our need. It is a philosophy that has permeated many aspects of parliamentary life and federal-provincial decision making over the years. It is at the heart of medicare and our national health care system, which is very much in danger today. There is a great threat to the loss of that fundamental program.

The principle is still maintained and Canadians still remain attached to those fundamental values of cooperation and community, of caring and sharing. That is the essence of who we are as Canadians and it is why the equalization process is so important.

There are many different reasons that equalization is important. I want to make reference to the Constitution and remind everyone of what we agreed to with the changes to our Constitution and the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982. It states:

Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

Equalization is intended to secure horizontal fiscal equity to ensure that between provinces there is the capacity to generate broadly comparable revenues per capita without recourse to significantly higher than average levels of taxation. That is the fundamental principle of equalization. We need to remind ourselves of all those who fought so hard to get this principle enshrined in the Constitution, and in the way of doing business between federal, provincial and territorial governments.

A very important paper written by Errol Black and Jim Silver was prepared for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I recommend it to all members as a very important contribution to the debate. The paper and its authors point out the following developments in our history pertaining to equalization.

First, they remind us that two decades ago the Parliamentary Task Force on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements reported that equalization was:

--variously described by witnesses before the Task Force as the 'glue that holds Confederation together' and 'a pillar of Confederation'.

The paper goes on to point out that in 2002 the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance stated:

We are united in our belief that this is an important, in fact a defining national program.

Furthermore the paper shows us that a recent academic study of the equalization program found:

The concept of equalization, enshrined in the Constitution Act 1982, enjoys almost unanimous support among Canadian politicians and academics.

Finally, the paper notes that the Economic Council of Canada reported that it considered the sharing of costs and benefits embodied in Canada's system of equalization payments to be one of the major foundations of Canadian nationhood.

This is the case whether we are talking about equalization in terms of nation building, or whether we are supporting equalization because it means citizens from one end of the country to the other are able to participate equally knowing that wherever they live, whatever they make, whatever their circumstances they are treated as equal citizens and are entitled to those resources to help them contribute fully and equally in society today, or whether we are talking about the social justice issues at hand. This reminds us that equalization should also be justified on moral grounds as a question of decency and social justice. That comes from constitutional authority David Milne who has been an outspoken expert in this area.

I could go on with all kinds of references to noted academics and experts in this field who point to the seriousness of the issues we are debating. They remind us of the responsibility we have as parliamentarians to do our utmost to make equalization work. Does Bill C-24 make sure that equalization is on a solid footing and that it works in terms of those broad principles and values that we hold so near and dear?

We have heard enough today to know that there are serious problems with this issue. The government has actually bungled the whole issue of federal-provincial relations vis-à-vis equalization.

The situation is hardly better than it was before the government sat down and forced a deal on the provinces. All the government has done is put off many problems that have to be dealt with at some point. By way of this legislation I guess we will get a chance in five years.

Goodness knows what could happen in five years' time. We may see more side deals struck between the Prime Minister and other provinces. All the more power to any province that can do that because it seems to be the only way that works with the government. The provinces have to fight for every little bit of turf because the federal government only works on the basis of the squeaky wheel.

The Prime Minister seems to bend every time there is a bit of pressure, as opposed to sticking firm to certain principles. His flip-flopping and dithering are becoming well known features of the Canadian political landscape. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the debate on equalization.

When we were debating this matter at committee and some of us were proposing amendments to the bill, it was suggested to us that this matter had been signed by the provinces, that it had been dealt with and that we had no business making any changes. We were told that the matter was over and done with.

It is fair to remind Canadians that in fact the provinces were dragged kicking and screaming into signing this particular arrangement.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-24, a bill that authorizes greater and more stable equalization payments for Canadian provinces and sets into motion a review of the current equalization formula by a panel of experts.

Equalization is an important national program that helps to sustain provincial funding and services, and it needs to be there for the provinces and territories. As the official opposition intergovernmental affairs critic, I want to signal our support for equalization and for the escalator clause that is found within the bill.

We support the provinces in their push for greater stability and predictably within the system. The changes that will result over the next few years and the escalator clause will provide that predictability as will the floors put in equalization and the territorial formula financing. However, the Conservative Party has argued along with several provinces that Canada needs to develop an equalization system that is more sensitive to the local economies of particular provinces. That idea will take up the bulk of my comments this afternoon.

Even with the passage of this bill, the government does not seem to understand the fact that the equalization system and territorial financing do not sit in a vacuum. Instead, it is part of the financial arrangements that shape intergovernmental relations within Canada. These programs need to be considered within the wider scope of provincial economies and the ability of provinces and territories to both provide services and create a favourable business climate.

Finally, and this will come as no surprise to the government, I will comment on the subject of non-renewable natural resource revenues and why we believe that these revenues need to be taken out of the equalization formula.

The Prime Minister and finance minister have, in my mind, waited too long to deal with this issue. It has come back to haunt them first, in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, currently in Saskatchewan, and increasingly in Canada's northern territories. As well the government needs to take note of the current position taken by the government of Ontario with regard to equalization.

Primarily, I want to talk about the legislation but direct my comments more toward the expert panel that will eventually be struck. Sound ideas regarding equalization have been proposed to the deaf ears of the government, especially in the area of natural resource development. It is time the government took these ideas seriously.

My hope is that the panel will find a way to incorporate these ideas so that equalization and territorial formula financing begins to work in concert with the economic and social aims of provinces and territories instead of continually hindering their objectives. We said at second reading that we had no major objections with the bill. We believe that it did not go far enough in making real changes to equalization, but the fact that an expert panel will be established does show two things. First, it shows that the government's acknowledgement of the equalization formula is flawed. This is something that the provinces have said and this is something that our party has argued for quite a long time. Second, it shows that the government is completely out of ideas as to how to change the equalization system.

After the past 11 years it is refreshing to have a government that admits that it does not know what it is doing and that it might need some assistance.

Speaking of assistance, I am glad to see that the provinces will be able to nominate two members to the equalization panel and that the territories will be able to nominate a person to the territorial financing formula panel. As the government knows, there is difficulty in forging a consensus among provinces regarding the formula. The government also knows that different provinces and territories would likely bring new approaches to the equalization formula and it would be better to have these ideas on the table during the process rather than added after the fact.

This is important because Canadian provinces rely on the formula and territories rely on the territorial formula financing whose local economies are most affected by the formula. In fact, we already see provinces coming to the table with their ideas as newspaper reports this weekend have pointed out. Furthermore, whatever changes are recommended by the expert panel, it is fairly clear that provincial officials are going to have a greater sense of how these changes will affect the services that are provided by the provinces or how those changes will affect the business climate in each province.

I also hope that the expert panel will take an expansive view, a look at other measures and other equalization systems being used in federations around the world. As I will discuss later on, the member for Prince Albert has found some interesting statistics that show some of the flaws in the current formula. If there is a better way of measuring not only the capacity but also the fiscal means of each province, I would hope that the panel will have an opportunity to discuss these.

I would like to stress that it is imperative that no province is left worse off by any changes to the equalization formula. If there is one problem that I have with the panel of experts, it is not with the panel itself as much as it is with the government across the way. The government has retained the ultimate decision making authority so it is fair to ask, what assurances do we that the recommendations of the panel will actually be heeded?

It is important from our standpoint and in the view of the provinces that the government puts the recommendations of the panel ahead of political expediency. There are no guarantees in Bill C-24 that this will be the case. Instead we may be left with politics as usual, and given the importance of the equalization system in Canada, we cannot allow this to happen. It is in that spirit that I ask the government to pay special attention to the recommendations made by the provincial representatives on the panel.

I also think it is important in debating this bill that the House not lose sight of the continuing fiscal imbalance in our federation. The purpose of equalization is to ensure comparable services across the country. In Bill C-24, by ensuring stable and predictable funding, the government has at the very least signalled that it realizes that a system which encourages strong, self-sustaining provinces is the best way to ensure high quality and comparable services.

However it is important to remember that until the government recognizes the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government, it will always use equalization to hold provinces hostage and penalize them for developing strong economies.

Instead of giving more power to provincial governments, ceding more tax room to provincial governments and encouraging every province to continue to build high quality services, the federal government attempts to move into provincial jurisdiction and duplicate federal programs. We saw this last September with health care. We saw the minister's failed attempt at a child care deal this past weekend. It has been an ongoing problem on the Kyoto file. And I am sure we will see something like this in his cities file as well. Of course, the finance subcommittee on the fiscal imbalance will examine the fiscal imbalance and its related issues. However it is important that we keep this in mind over the next year as the panel of experts does its work.

The main point though that I would like to make in my address today is the one concerning natural resources. It is quite an important point and one that has caused great activity among the provinces over the past week. In my comments on this bill at second reading , I mentioned our disappointment with the fact that the contentious question related to natural resources was not solved in this bill, and instead was pushed off to a panel of experts. I also noted that this question would have to be resolved, especially given the Prime Minister's inept handling of the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia question. In fact, I said that any deal with Newfoundland or Nova Scotia would lead to calls from other jurisdictions for a similar arrangement, and today, while the Prime Minister signs deals with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, this prediction has come true.

I would like to spend some time on this subject because it really speaks to the inconsistency of the Prime Minister's position, as well as his neglects of the very issue at the heart of Premier Williams' anger with him, and that is the right of any province to have full ownership over its natural resources. Provinces should be able to develop and enjoy the profits of these resources without the threat of federal penalty, and they should not have to negotiate this right from any federal government, and any province means any province.

No sooner than a week after the offshore deals with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were finally struck, the Saskatchewan minister of finance asked for a similar arrangement for Saskatchewan's natural resources, which include oil, gas, potash, uranium, diamonds and others. Premier Calvert has asked only that should Saskatchewan again fall below the equalization standard, that the government stop clawing back the province's non-renewable natural resource revenue. This seems reasonable, especially given the arrangement that has been made with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan is quite a special case because it is now considered, via the equalization formula, to be a contributing province despite the fact that by any measures it faces significantly more difficult challenges than some of those provinces that are still beneficiaries under equalization.

As the member for Prince Albert has so astutely pointed out, Saskatchewan faces several challenges, including out-migration, a declining tax base, lower than average per capita income, longer than average wait time for MRIs and other concerns, yet because of natural resource development it turns out that Saskatchewan is considered a have province, but this does not seem to add up.

Yet when the member for Prince Albert asked the Minister of Finance why we still have an equalization formula that obviously needs to be fixed or why Saskatchewan is being penalized for developing its natural resource sector, the Minister of Finance responded that the current system is already more than fair to Saskatchewan. Again, this does not add up.

British Columbia has also signalled that it too would like to ensure that it receives fair treatment for its natural resources. British Columbia may one day develop the natural resources that lie offshore in the Pacific Ocean. Both the federal and provincial government know that there is a great deal of wealth off the coast of British Columbia and the province would like to have the opportunity to develop those resources without a federal clawback.

New Brunswick has also said that it would like to see a special arrangement made with respect to its natural resources. New Brunswick has a mining industry and would like to keep 100% of the revenue from those resources.

Ontario, on the other hand, is upset by the Prime Minister's signing ceremony today. Ontario sees the side deals for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia as unfair and is wondering about other side deals that might be signed by the government.

In response to Ontario's concern, the Prime Minister has said that Canadian is a wide and diverse country and that deals need to be struck to ensure all regions have the opportunity to succeed. We could not agree more. My question, however, is: Are these deals going to be struck under a consistent argument based on logic or are they one-off arrangements made out of political expediency?

For the Prime Minister, expedience carries the day. The problem, of course, is that the Prime Minister found himself down in the polls and he needed to find a way to boost his support in the east. Therefore he thought he would make the same promise that the Leader of the Opposition made.

However, whereas the promise made by our leader was one that he had consistently made and one that he had thought about within the entire range of equalization policy, the promise made by the Prime Minister was hasty and stood in direct contrast to his record on the subject.

The Prime Minister has spent the last 12 years coming up with every excuse possible to not allow Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of the profits from its offshore oil and gas industry. The Prime Minister has also done everything in his power to ensure that natural resource revenues remain within the equalization formulation. While we disagreed with his position, we could at least say that he was consistent.

That being said, when he made the promise to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, he broke his consistency. He should not be surprised that provinces and territories now want him to be fully consistent on this point; that is, they would like him to fully embrace the policy of the Conservative Party of Canada. We cannot have one without the other. The Prime Minister cannot give a side deal to two provinces and not expect other provinces to want to benefit on equal terms. It is, after all, called equalization.

Our party does not have the difficulty that the Prime Minister does. We have always believed in giving Newfoundland and Nova Scotia the benefit of a deal that ensures that they have 100% of their resources , with no federal clawback. We think a deal like that would be good for the local economies of those two provinces. We think that by allowing those provinces to keep resource revenues they would have a fighting chance to develop their resource bases further.

We also think, however, that it should not just be Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that benefit from such an arrangement. Every province and territory ought to have the ability to develop its own natural resources and to keep the profits from those resources.

Of course the answer to all of these concerns is to wait for the expert panel to report. I guess that is what we will have to do.

However somebody should at least advise the finance minister that his Prime Minister has stirred up a political problem and has left him holding the bag. This is a political problem borne out of an inconsistent and not very well thought out position. Instead of developing a plan that would solve this problem up front, the Prime Minister has now shuffled it off his plate, much to the dissatisfaction of Canada's premiers. Either he still has not understood the inconsistency of his position or he realizes what he has done and is trying to find someone else to carry the file forward from here.

In any case, it is clear that natural resource revenues are the major issue for equalization. The right thing for the Prime Minister to do would be to follow the Conservative lead and take non-renewable natural resources out of the equalization formula altogether.

I should also say that it is not just the provinces that are watching to see what the government will be doing with regard to natural resources. We also know that Canada's northern territories are watching this file closely. Territorial formula financing is different than equalization in that there are added components to ensure that the north can provide comparable services despite the fact that it has a small population base spread out over large territories of land.

This legislation is, in the short term, a positive development for the territories in that it would provide stable and predictable funding.

However the legislation itself does not have a wider or a longer view with regard to natural resource revenue sharing or territorial devolution. Of course much of this is found within the northern strategy. However it seems important to me that we start to develop the fiscal framework of devolution immediately.

Given the Prime Minister's musings on territories becoming provinces, one would think there would be something in place in this bill to help all the territories get there.

The file is most urgent for the Northwest Territories, which has an abundance of oil, gas and diamonds that are exported around the world but Yukon and Nunavut are developing natural resource bases as well.

With an appropriate resource revenue sharing agreement in place, there is no question that the Northwest Territories could be a have jurisdiction. This is Premier Handley's point, which is why he has asked for a similar deal to the one that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are receiving.

The oil and gas fields in the Northwest Territories are rich in potential. Diamond mining is a $3 billion per year industry in the Northwest Territories. The territorial government sees exactly zero dollars from either of these industries.

Nunavut and Yukon would also like to reach self-reliance through resource revenue sharing and strategic economic development, and these territories have both the resources and the capacity to become have jurisdictions over time as well.

In Nunavut, natural resource development is still in its formative stages. One of the challenges that Nunavut faces is that there is not an accurate assessment of the true abundance of Nunavut's resources. The knowledge is there, however, that mineral deposits exist in places like the Jericho diamond mine. The government needs to develop its physical capital as well as its human capital in order to get those minerals out of the ground.

However, as both the Government of Nunavut and the Conference Board of Canada have suggested, the key to this development is ensuring that the people of Nunavut have greater control over the resources and greater self-reliance in the future.

It is becoming clear that when companies find the way to efficiently harvest the natural resources of the north that the north will contain Canada's next resource based economic boom. It is just a matter of getting from point A to point B. However the problem, as it relates to Bill C-24, is that with regard to territorial formula financing the federal government has not made the commitment that is necessary for northern development.

Territorial transfers are based upon an abstract formula that takes into account revenue raising capacity and the capacity gap that exists between provinces and territories. The formula falls short, however, because it fails to address the real needs of the north. The current formula does not take into account the fact that due to its remoteness the costs of energy, construction, transportation and infrastructure, all the things that are staples of government activity and that are necessary for harvesting natural resources, are significantly higher in northern Canada than in the provinces.

In Bill C-24 there is no commitment toward the development of a formula that results in adequate fiscal capacity for the territories reflecting the real costs that face Canada's northern territories.

When we take equalization and territorial formula financing together, with one the government penalizes those provinces that attempt to generate revenue from their natural resource base, and with the other, the government is not taking the necessary steps to ensure revenue sharing and an even larger northern resource development sector.

The system needs to be changed to fairly address the natural resource issue, and my feeling is that this change could be done right now. It does not require a year of study. It is already apparent that this has become a political issue for Canada's provinces, territories and the federal government. For every year of delay, that is more provincial money going into federal coffers and less toward provincial economies.

It is quite ironic that we are debating third reading of Bill C-24 today. For the benefit of the House, it might be helpful to recap the Prime Minister's path to this legislation.

The bill is a result of a federal-provincial agreement that was struck in late October 2004. By looking at Bill C-24, one would think that conference had been a roaring success. However it was at the equalization summit that Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams walked out because he was tired of the Prime Minister attempting to control the natural resources of his province. Premier Williams was tired of having to negotiate a deal out of the Prime Minister just to get the Prime Minister to keep his promise. Today the Prime Minister is signing an agreement that he should have signed on June 29 because that is when this party would have signed the agreement.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, our party supports the bill but the House should not forget about the things that are not in the bill. Bill C-24 would set into motion an entire process of review and it is in that review and a subsequent federal-provincial-territorial meeting that the Prime Minister's handling of the resource revenue issue will come to light once again. My hope is that in the meantime the government will not jeopardize the intent and the spirit of the equalization program.