Bill S-3 (Historical)

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010

An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income

This enactment implements the most recent tax treaties that Canada has concluded with Colombia, Greece and Turkey.
The treaties implemented reflect efforts to expand Canada’s tax treaty network. Those treaties are generally patterned on the Model Double Taxation Convention prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Tax treaties have two main objectives: the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. Since a tax treaty contains taxation rules that are different from the provisions of the Income Tax Act, it becomes effective only after being given precedence over domestic legislation by an Act of Parliament such as this one. Finally, for each of those tax treaties to become effective, it must be ratified after the enactment of this Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I will now suggest we move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-3.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

Mr. Wallace.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the meeting back to order, colleagues.

The clerk has asked me to remind you that we will be at 1 Wellington tomorrow at 9 a.m. That is the new building next to the Chateau Laurier.

We have an hour set aside for the study of Bill S-3, an act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece, and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. We do have....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I want to thank you for your presentations and your answers to our questions.

If you have anything further you'd like the committee to look at, even on an ongoing basis—and Mr. Hodgson mentioned some reports—please feel free at any time to forward those to the clerk and we'll ensure that all members get them.

Thank you so much for your time here today.

Colleagues, I will pause for a few minutes and then we will move on to Bill S-3.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions). The short title is the Combating Terrorism Act.

It is important that we review what this bill actually sets out to do, because sometimes when we are debating it, we lose track of this over the course of the debate, and people who might be listening could lose track as well.

Specifically, what this bill will do is establish investigative hearings under the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act, whereby individuals who may have information about past or future terrorism offences can be compelled to attend a hearing and to answer questions. No one attending a hearing can refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination. Information gathered at such hearings cannot be used directly in criminal proceedings against the individual, but derivative evidence may be.

The other significant provision of this legislation is a provision for preventive arrest, whereby individuals may be arrested without a warrant in order to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist act. Detention in this case would be based on what someone might do in a certain situation. The arrested individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours, or as soon as it is feasible. The judge determines whether the individual is to be released unconditionally or released under certain conditions, recognizance with conditions, which are in effect for up to 12 months. If the conditions are refused, the individual may be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

The bill also contains a five-year sunset clause, requiring a resolution of both the House and Senate for it to be renewed.

This is indeed significant legislation, and it is not the first time we have seen it come before the House. It came out of the Anti-terrorism Act that was enacted after the 9/11 events. At that time, when there were serious concerns about what had recently happened, everybody was worried and fearful, which is not too strong a word to use, about what was actually going on at that time.

These two provisions were included in that legislation, albeit with a sunset clause requiring that they be reviewed within five years. If Parliament did not re-approve them, they would come to an end. In fact, that is exactly what happened. When they were put to Parliament, Parliament did not agree to their extension.

Since that time, there have been several attempts by the Conservative government to reintroduce these provisions into our criminal law, into the Anti-terrorism Act. One was short-circuited by an early prorogation of the House, and others have not been given the priority that, if they were sufficiently important, they should certainly have received.

This is not the first time, in my term as a member of Parliament, that we have debated these issues. I have to wonder why, if this is so important, it was not given a higher priority by the government. It belies the importance of these issues that the government has not made sure this legislation got through earlier.

I also have to wonder why this legislation is necessary. I do not believe that we are responding to any serious failure of the Criminal Code of Canada to deal with terrorism, or any of the crimes that might be related to terrorism in Canada. I have not heard that we have failed to convict people who have committed terrorist acts or who are considering terrorist acts. In fact, post 9/11, we have convicted people under the provisions of the Criminal Code, without using these special provisions of crimes related to terrorism. We have seen the group in Toronto. We have seen others who have been convicted. This would say to me that there is not a problem with the existing Criminal Code legislation, that there is not a problem in investigating and actually charging and convicting people in the usual process of crimes related to terrorism.

I have to ask, then, regarding these special provisions, which go way beyond the normal provisions of our justice system, and which violate fundamental human rights in Canada, why we would want to go down that road. To my knowledge, no proof has ever been presented to the House or to one of the committees of the House, that the current provisions of the Criminal Code are not functioning when it comes to dealing with acts of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. Why do we have these provisions before us?

It is important to consider the serious nature of these provisions. They have a serious effect on what Canadians have come to know as basic human rights, basic civil liberties. The proposal to compel testimony from individuals, to force people to testify in court, violates the right to remain silent. It violates the right not to incriminate oneself before the law. That is a serious violation. It is something that most Canadians appreciate in our criminal law. Before we go down this road, we need to consider carefully why all this is necessary.

The investigative hearing proposals in this legislation would force someone to testify before a judge if he or she were suspected of having information about terrorist activity that has already occurred or that might occur. It directly compromises the right to remain silent, one of the fundamental principles of our justice system. The refusal to testify at an investigative hearing can lead to one year of jail time. It can also reduce the right to silence for persons who are questioned by the RCMP or CSIS: if they are uncooperative with a police investigation, the possibility of having to go to an investigative hearing can be used to compel cooperation and compromise their right to remain silent.

We have to realize that not everyone who chooses to remain silent in such circumstances is guilty, that choosing to remain silent is not an admission of guilt or proof of guilt. People may have legitimate fears and concerns. For instance, they might be concerned about their personal safety. Given the broad definition of terrorism in the Anti-terrorism Act, I believe that this provision is a problem. The definition itself has come in for criticism in the past.

This provision and the one on preventive detention are serious departures from our justice process. They could be used against people who are legitimately protesting or who are viewed as dissidents by our society. These provisions could be used to harass or even imprison such people.

A number of people today have mentioned the G20 protest and the mass arrests that were held. For the most part, they appeared to be carried out for preventive reasons. In my opinion, this process violated the rights to peaceful assembly, protest, and the expression of political views.

The whole question of investigative hearings raises another serious issue about how we do justice in this country. It puts judges in the position of having to oversee an investigation, which is a real departure from the normal process in our system. It is not the practice of our justice system and it is not something that most judges have experience with. It is a major departure since investigations in our system are normally undertaken by police authorities.

In hearings the Senate had on the previous incarnation of this bill, Jason Gratl, the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, put this concern in this way:

The primary difficulty with investigative hearings is that they distort the functions of the judiciary and the Crown. In essence, the course of order-making power of the judiciary is brought to bear on an investigation. That power places prosecutors in the role of investigators, which is unlike their usual role. It also places the judiciary in a position of presiding over a criminal investigation.

This is a serious consideration that we need to look at with this legislation and this proposal.

There is also the matter of preventive detention. Preventive detention, or recognizance with conditions, is the other key part of the bill. It compromises a key principle of our justice system, namely, that one should be charged, convicted, and sentenced in order to be jailed. This provision would allow for the arrest and detention of people without ever proving any allegation against them. It could make people subject to conditions on release with severe limitations on their personal freedom, even if they have never been convicted of any crime. That is a serious departure from what we would normally expect from our justice system.

Some folks may say this is necessary, but I believe that jailing people because we think they might do something is extremely problematic, to say the least. It is easily apparent how such a measure can be abused.

There is a good example to be found in our practice already, and I think it is a very bad practice. It relates to the question of security certificates, which is a measure under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We have seen this in the post-9/11 period. It was intended to expedite deportation of non-citizens. Under this legislation, we have seen it used as a method of detaining people, a method of preventive detention for people that the state suspected may have been involved in terrorist activity. The most recent cases were the five men who were detained for years, some up to eight years, without ever being charged or convicted of a crime.

I think this was a distortion of the intention of the security certificate legislation. I also think it was a process that violated basic human rights in Canada. Some of these men are still subject to release conditions as a result of the security certificate that this government issued against them and that the previous Liberal government initiated.

There are serious problems, and we have seen some of these problems emerge in the court processes that these men have been involved in over the years. In fact, a number of the security certificates have now been thrown out because of the length of time they have been used and problems related to evidence.

I have to emphasize that these people have never been charged or convicted of any crime in Canada. The security certificate process has had nothing to do with that. I think this is an indication of how a legal measure can be distorted. Security certificates were intended to expedite deportation for people who had violated the conditions of their stay in Canada. But they have been used for other purposes. That is something we need to consider when we are looking at extraordinary measures like the ones in this legislation.

I point out that there is no issue related to terrorism that is not already covered by the Criminal Code. I think the NDP's justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has said this loud and clear on a number of occasions. The last time we were debating this issue in the House he put it very eloquently. I want to quote from his speech at that time. He said:

There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for premeditated, cold-blooded murder; however, it is also true of the destruction of major infrastructure.

Moreover, when judges exercise their discretion during sentencing, they will consider the terrorist motive as an aggravating factor. They will find that the potential for rehabilitation is very low, that the risk of recidivism is very high and that deterrence and denunciation are grounds for stiffer sentencing. This is what they have always done in the past and there is no reason to think they will do differently in the future.

It is clear that there is no crime related to terrorism that is not already included in the Criminal Code. I can think of no circumstance of a crime committed as part of an act of terrorism that would not be dealt with in the strictest, toughest way by our courts. Some specific examples might be helpful. For instance, counselling to commit murder is already an offence under the Criminal Code. Being a party to an offence is also a crime. The crime of conspiracy is well established under the Criminal Code and deals with the planning of criminal activity.

Let us be clear. In the conspiracy category, no crime actually has to be committed for someone to be found guilty of conspiracy under the Criminal Code. A charge is possible even when no crime has been committed under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

We also have hate crime legislation that outlaws the promotion of hatred against a particular group, which may have some relevance in situations of terrorist activity.

The whole question of preventive detention also has an existing parallel in some ways in the Criminal Code. It should be noted that peace bonds provisions already exist in the Criminal Code and can be exercised where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person's life or well-being is threatened by another person. This provision has similar power to preventive detention, as discussed in this bill, but more significant safeguards are built into the Criminal Code provision.

No one has demonstrated to my satisfaction that this existing provision will not meet the needs of dealing with terrorist activity. It is crucial to be very clear about that. We have not seen any evidence that there is a failure of the Criminal Code to deal with acts of terrorism or the planning of terrorist acts in Canada. We have not seen that the existing provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada need these extraordinary measures, which are an affront to some basic and long accepted and long established, for hundreds of years, principles of our justice system in Canada.

We need to be clear that when it comes to dealing with terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism, we really need to focus on and put our energy into police and intelligence work. We have seen in the past that Canada was ill-prepared when it met the challenge of a terrorist act. The Air India bombing comes to mind. Canada did not have the ability to appropriately investigate that situation. Police authorities did not have the resources, staff or people with the skills they needed to appropriately investigate that kind of crime.

We have to make sure in this process that our police and intelligence services have the personnel and resources they need to investigate potential terrorist acts and to charge those responsible. That has to be the flow. We have to do the investigations and lay the charges and ensure the full gamut of our justice system is engaged in that process.

I do not think it is appropriate to say that we are going to do the investigation and come up with some evidence but shut down the rest of the process of charging and hopefully convicting someone who is alleged to have committed those crimes. The conviction is very necessary in all of that. For me that is one of the failings in the security certificate process.

We have to be aware that these provisions were first proposed in a time of fear, after the attacks of 9/11. People were not exactly sure what was happening at that time. We have to also be aware that legislating in a time of fear and uncertainty like the period immediately after 9/11 can lead to bad legislation. It can lead to unintended consequences, ultimately, such as labelling and stereotyping individuals and groups in our society.

There is much evidence that says when we do that kind of thing, we do not make good legislation. Denis Barrette, the spokesperson for International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, said at the Senate hearings on Bill S-3:

These laws are used in emergencies, where fear and panic are at the forefront—somewhat like what happened at the time of September 11, 2001.

Fear is never a good adviser. It is rather in moments of peace and quiet that the importance of preserving rights and freedoms should be rationally assessed. It is obviously important to defend them in difficult times, but we must plan for how to protect them in difficult times.

It is easy to protect rights and freedoms in peaceful times. We must provide for the unpredictable and ensure that, in a moment of panic, legislation does not result in innocent victims because it was poorly conceived or because it was dangerous or useless.

I believe that is what we have before us in Bill C-17, and that is why I strongly oppose this legislation.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was here in the chamber when the minister gave his speech. I looked at the provisions in the law. He put his reasons forward. My understanding is that it is not much different from the legislation that existed, which the Conservatives at the time, the member will recall, in 2007, wanted to renew without any changes.

It even, in fact, picks up some of the recommendations in Bill S-3. The two major provisions are still in the same order.

In fact, if I read the minister's speech, he appears, subject to the test at committee, to be adopting some of the improvements that were suggested, ultimately, by the Senate when it passed the bill before we were prorogued into another election.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

In the legislative history of the bill, there were improvements made along the way. With respect to his preliminary concerns about where the party is, the party generally accepted the Senate's view in its Bill S-3 improvements.

We have to examine what the minister means with respect to the right to instruct and retain counsel, which I think is key to the member's point on self-incrimination.

I challenge the member to show me where the right against self-incrimination, which is from the section 10 and section 11 rights of individuals in the legal process, is not at all times in collision with, say, section 1 of the Charter, which is the override provision, or with the general sense of the need for national security.

I said in my remarks that there is always a collision between these. They cannot be compatible. There has to be a collision between the rights. No one right is alone, sacrosanct, and overpowering.

For the member to say that to the public belies his training, I think, as a lawyer and also as a public official.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to this important bill. I also am pleased to be back in the Chamber after a summer recess that was very successful in terms of democracy, of hearing from the public and of coming back here, as I think all parliamentarians have, with a joint sense that we must make this place work. We must make it more co-operative, more intelligent and more reasonable and open.

With that in mind, I am drawn to the comments of Andrew Cohen in this morning's Ottawa Citizen who said that backbench MPs and individual MPs have no power, have no independence, do not think, do not debate and pretty much are the stuff found under rocks. However, I beg to differ in a non-partisan moment.

In two days we will be voting on a backbencher's bill that has engaged all of the public one way or another in debate. Many current members in the House and those in past Parliaments have worked very hard and quietly on issues of importance to them and their constituents. Overall, with all due respect to question period and the reforms therein proposed and the highlights on the news every night from this Chamber during that time, it bears repeating that most of the serious work in Parliament is done in committee and in cross party, cross the aisle negotiations with respect to laws that hopefully make this country a better place and, as I bring it back to this debate, a safer place.

Bill C-17 is a perfect example of a bill that has been bandied about in various incarnations dealing with the security of the public, which is one issue that does not divide anybody in the House. We all want the public to be safe and we all want public security. We may differ, however, on the means to achieve public security.

The debate itself has been discussing two important tools. Whether we agree they are needed is the hub of the debate but it bears repeating as to what they are.

In response to threats of terrorism and in the period just after 9/11, there was much debate about what we would do if we were faced with future terrorist threats, attacks or rumours of attacks or threats to our country and to our people. It was not a unilateral decision but it was felt by this Parliament that two inclusions should be made to our over 100-year-old Criminal Code. For the people who wrote and enacted the Criminal Code in the 1890s, probably the nearest thing to a terrorist attack was the War of 1812 or the raid in St. Albans, Vermont in 1865. That was probably in the psyche of most of the people who wrote the code way back when.

Let us look back to 2001 to the communities like Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, Moncton and Halifax that welcomed plane loads of people diverted by the terrorist attacks in New York, which we recently commemorated earlier this month. What was the mentality of the Canadian public and parliamentarians with respect to public security? Something needed to be done. As Canadians and parliamentarians, we felt under attack. We felt ill-equipped to handle the next perhaps imminent threat of terrorist activity. We as Canadians felt, because of concerns made known at the time, that our border was porous and that somehow we had something to do collectively in a remote guilt sense for the occurrences in New York and other places on that day.

Parliament, therefore, decided to inculcate the Criminal Code with two tools to be used if necessary, one being the investigative hearing. In the Criminal Code of Canada an investigative hearing would allow authorities to compel the testimony of an individual without the right to decline to answer questions on the basis of self-incrimination.

The intent would be to call in those on the periphery of an alleged plot who may have vital information, rather than the core suspects. These are the people on the periphery, who would have an overwhelming incentive to lie to protect themselves, the actual accused. It was an attempt, working in concert with CSIS and our investigative security-based individuals, to find out more information to prevent terrorist attacks and terrorist incidents. That was to be inserted into the Criminal Code of Canada, a very new provision.

The second new provision was the preventive arrest provision, allowing police to arrest and hold an individual, in some cases without warrant, provided they have reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest would prevent future terrorist activity. Those were introduced in 2004. In the context of 2001, the context seemed reasonable. The context was that we were protecting our community. We were protecting our nation.

There were many safeguards built in to those provisions, and I might add that it was a Liberal government that brought in these provisions, so I do not think it lies in anyone's mouth on any side to say that Liberals are not concerned with terrorism. This was Liberal legislation, and like all legislation that was new and that dealt with the collision between the need for public safety and the primacy of individual rights, it is the collective versus the individual. Like all of those debates and all those pieces of legislation, the collision always results in imperfection because no one goes home completely satisfied with the result.

The key part of the legislation was the so-called sunset clause. At the end of five years, the legislation would sunset and would be no more. The provision was put in place clearly because parliamentarians, particularly members of the Liberal caucus and members of the government, and committee reports and minutes are replete with speeches to this effect, realized that this collision between the public security goal and the private rights goal would result, potentially, into an intrusion into the latter, so they said, “Let us sunset it. Let us see if it is needed, if it is used wantonly, without regard for personal rights, if it is used at all, and if it can be interpreted by the courts or refined through practice”.

Many times we lob a ball into the air called legislation and really hope that the courts get a chance to interpret it, to get it right, one might say, but we do try to make legislation work. In this case, the sunset clause was allowed to sunset, despite attempts to bring the debate back to Parliament. At the very end of the time for the period to run out, a debate was held and the sunset clause was not removed, or the legislation was not permitted to continue, so we are without these tools. This is where we are today. This is the debate today, whether we should have these tools in our Criminal Code with respect to terrorism or suspected terrorism.

A bill which eventually worked its way through the Senate of Canada, with good recommendations from senators and Commons committees before that, a bill known as Bill S-3, correctly and accurately assessed the situation since the original enactment of these provisions. These provisions are found in the Criminal Code in sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3. These are the conditions for investigative hearings, which define at some length the modalities as well as recognizance with conditions and arrest warrants for the anti-terrorism legislation.

It is not just these three sections. It is a misnomer to think that we just put these three sections in. There are some 25 pages in section 83 dealing with terrorism. They deal with seizure of property and all sections that have not been challenged or rescinded. It is only these sections dealing with individual liberties that have been touched.

Bill S-3 made some improvements to the regime as it was. There was an increased emphasis on the need for the judge to be satisfied that law enforcement has taken all reasonable steps to obtain information by other legal means before resorting to this.

There was one key consideration: the ability for any person ordered to attend an investigative hearing to retain and instruct counsel. A person so apprehended should have the right to counsel of their choice. There were new reporting requirements for the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety who then must now both submit annual reports which not only list the uses of these provisions but also provide opinions supported by reasons as to whether the powers needed to be retained.

There should be flexibility to have any provincial court judge hear a case regarding a preventive arrest.

And, finally, the five-year end date, unless both Houses of Parliament resolve to extend the provisions further, would be put in; that is, another sunset clause.

These amendments made their way through Parliament and, at the risk of not having a completely happy audience, then the P word intervened and we were sent home to go through yet another election. That is sad. That is too bad. But that has been debated before. We know that we do not like prorogation, it interrupts our business, but we were on our way.

Remember now these provisions were put in and as I said, we often want to hear what the courts have to say about them.

Well, an important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada took place in 2003 and 2004. The hearing was December 2003 and the decision was in the middle of the year 2004. The court, made up of the current chief justice and almost all the existing judges now, with the exception of New Mr. Brunswick's Mr. Justice Bastarache, who has since retired, concluded that the provisions put in, particularly 83.28, investigative hearings, were constitutional, but there were a number of comments made in that decision which no one could take as a complete endorsement of the legislation.

While they upheld it, it is important, I think, to note that three justices of the Supreme Court, remember, one has left the court, dissented and found, for instance, using their language:

The Crown's resort to s. 83.28 [which was an investigative hearing] of the Criminal Code in this case was at least in part for an inappropriate purpose, namely, to bootstrap the prosecution's case in the Air India trial by subjecting an uncooperative witness, the Named Person, to a mid-trial examination for discovery before a judge other than the Air India trial judge.

They went on to say:

The Named Person was scheduled to testify for the prosecution in the Air India trial, but because the Crown proceeded by [a different method known as the] direct indictment, neither the prosecution nor the defence had a preliminary look at this witness [who was detained from the investigative hearing]. Section 83.28 was not designed to serve as a sort of half-way house between a preliminary hearing and a direct indictment.

What we have here are the players and the justice system ending up using a tool that was there for, quite frankly, maybe a different purpose. The players and the system had used a certain way of proceeding in a criminal case. They saw this tool lying on the shelf and they used it.

The court, in its majority, said, sure, we can do that because public security is the number one aim here. However, it did lead to the feeling that we, as parliamentarians, in sort of a renvoi or a send-back, have been told by the court that we did not draft perfect legislation when we drafted these pieces and it had been used somewhat indirectly for the purpose in question because of a prosecutor's choice to go a certain way, which I cannot second guess because the Air India trial was a very complicated matter, involving numerous informants of high publicity content throughout Canada. So, I cannot second guess the prosecutors, but they used it for a purpose that led three justices of the Supreme Court to say that is not what this was intended for.

The majority of the court, however, went on to say it is allowable, that section 83.28 does not violate section 7 of the charter and it does not violate section 11(b) with respect to counsel.

I find that a bit strange and I allow for the fact that because the person was not a person under arrest but a witness, by the clear letter of the law the individual would not have a right to counsel. I like the changes that have been submitted by the Senate, by members of the committee and the House that say yes, counsel of the choice of the detained person should be permitted.

We went further in the House and in the Senate than the majority of the Supreme Court that would have allowed such a use of section 83.28. In other words, we have improved, through the recommendations and now the bill being presented, what the Supreme Court thought was allowable with respect at least to the right to counsel.

The court said:

--a judicial investigative hearing remains procedural even though it may generate information pertaining to an offence...the presumption of immediate effect of s. 83.28 has not been rebutted.

It took the law of Canada to be serious. It took the tools in the tool box regarding anti-terrorism as serious and upheld the use of it, and we are down to numbers almost with respect to the Supreme Court, even when good, smart thinking, and now three members of the Supreme Court said it was misused, essentially.

Where are we, then, with the need for this legislation? There are opinions on either side, but let us remember the legislation originally introduced was to combat terrorism. Besides 9/11, which was traumatic for everyone in North America and the world, the prime instance of terrorism and trying to combat it resulted in or came out of the crash of Air India flight 182 and the following study of it by John Major, who was a former Supreme Court justice.

I know Liberals want to send it to committee and examine what was done with Bill S-3, the precursor acts. We want to put safeguards into any proposed legislation and keep the balance right between the need for public security and the primacy of individual rights. That is a given.

I told a little story about how we are interpreting laws based on the one instance of a prosecutor using a certain tool, which led the Supreme Court to say in a divided way, “Yes, it's okay, but you should be more careful than the committee improving the act”. The bigger picture that has been missing in the debate so far is what use is this if our security services do not talk to our police services and our police services are not in sync with the court officers who ultimately direct that this tool be used?

The report of John Major is very instructive in that regard because he says terrorism is both a serious security threat and a serious crime. Secret intelligence collected by Canadian and foreign intelligence agencies can warn the government about threats and help prevent terrorist attacks. Intelligence can also serve as evidence for prosecuting offences.

There is a delicate balance between openness and secrecy and that is what this debate is all about. We have to focus more on terrorism threats from the national security level than this tool, which the Supreme Court of Canada has already said is allowed.

Finally, I would close by saying that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, on behalf of this party, said we do not need this because we have not used it. I have a sump pump in my basement and I may never use it, but if I have a flood I want to have that sump pump there. I want to be ready for something that may happen in the future.

For my dollar's worth, I think this should go to committee and we should look seriously at what the dissent in that Supreme Court judgment said, what the majority said and this time, with the benefit of its advice and the advice of John Major, we should get it right. We should have those tools on the shelf.

The members who say we do not need them should be happy that we do not need them because it means that we have not had a terrorist threat. However, if we have a terrorist threat, I want those tools to be on the shelf for prosecutors to use, if needed, to keep our country safe, which is the goal we are all here to pursue.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague, who pointed out that Bill S-3 is a large bill, and that we must examine it thoroughly. I remind members of the initiatives that were introduced by the government, for example, in Bill C-9. The government opened loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The Bloc Québécois also introduced a number of initiatives to combat tax evasion. Every time, something happened in Parliament, with prorogations or elections, and our bills died on the order paper. The Bloc Québécois also tabled some provisions to combat tax evasion that were not passed by the House.

I would like the member to share with us some real solutions for combatting tax evasion.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the members of this House who have taken a principled stand against, first, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and now this treaty that we see before us, Bill S-3, an act to implement the most recent tax treaties with Greece, Colombia and Turkey.

I did wish to note that there is nothing exceptional in tax treaties. Canada enters into such treaties to help individuals and corporations to work in both Canada and the home country without double taxation, and to prevent tax evasion.

However, in the context of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, I am convinced that in order for Bill S-3 to be successful, it is essential to divide the bill. We can then vote for the treaties with Greece and Turkey, and set aside the treaty with Colombia.

The reason for avoiding the treaty with Colombia is related to our concerns with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Our concern rises from the fact that we in the NDP caucus challenge the ethics of that free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. We need to examine the situation in Colombia and look at it carefully so that we can understand why I am making this statement. Why kind of partner is Colombia, in terms of any kind of treaty?

I have been aware of the circumstances in Colombia for a number of years. I have actually had the privilege of speaking directly to Colombians from all walks of life in regard to the situation that they face in their homeland under the Uribe government. In fact, I have many constituents who fled to Canada because they no longer felt safe in their home country of Colombia.

In the last session of Parliament, I spoke about the CCFTA and undertook to talk about the lack of environmental protection and labour rights in the agreement.

Violations of labour rights and violence committed against unionized workers are among Colombia's foremost human rights challenges. Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. A deep-seated anti-trade union culture exists in that country, both within the government and among entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs and the government see autonomous organizations of workers as a threat.

There were 2,690 trade unionists murdered in Colombia since 1986, with 46 deaths in 2008 and 27 murders in 2009. Impunity rates for these violations are unchanged. There is only a 3% conviction rate for those who murder. Tragically, these crimes are tolerated by the Colombian government.

Canadians must not be party to this tolerance for violence. It goes against everything we believe about ourselves. It goes against our sense of justice. So, in signing Bill S-3 or in approving a tax treaty with Colombia, I think we are betraying our values as Canadians.

The Uribe government continues to inaccurately denounce union members as guerrillas, statements considered by the unions to give carte blanche to paramilitaries to act, putting workers in extreme jeopardy. Substantive labour rights protections remain in a side agreement of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, rather than in the body of that agreement. Enforcement of these rights is entirely at the discretion of the signatory government.

It is not a matter of discretion. It is a matter of life. It is a matter of justice. That life and justice is denied because the complaint process in the CCFTA does not investigate nor evaluate the complaints. There are no independent judicial or even quasi-judicial bodies that could lead to real remedies, that could look at the complaints and expect a change.

As I said, only a matter of discretion in the FTA governs these labour agreements. Unlike the provisions for investors' rights, the agreement offers no trading sanctions, no countervailing duties or abrogation of preferential trade status in the event that a party fails to adhere to labour rights provisions.

What it does institute, though, are fines. Fines for murder. That is just beyond belief.

Investors have rights, very clear and substantive rights. Workers do not. It defies logic. It defies understanding, and it is basically a matter of kill a trade unionist, pay a fine.

This is hardly acceptable or effective. Fines neither address the causes of the violence nor generate substantive incentives or political will in the Colombian administration to address the crisis and bring an end to the violence against trade unionists. Quite simply, there is no justice.

Given the scale and the depth of labour rights violations in Colombia, neither the Canada-Colombia free trade deal, its side labour deal or this tax treaty should be implemented. The fact is that it is more likely that agreement provisions for market liberalization and investors' rights, which are substantive, will exacerbate conflict and violations of workers' rights.

How on earth can we be party to this? How can we do it? How can we talk about tax treaties and trade agreements with a country where people's lives are in danger simply because they stand up for their rights?

Once Canadians understand what the proposed Canada-Colombia free trade agreement contains and what it means to sign a tax treaty with such a regime, they will simply reject it and they will ask this Parliament to reject it.

I would like to also speak about the crimes currently committed by the Uribe government against indigenous Colombians.

In a new report released February 23 of this year, Amnesty International called for immediate international action to ensure the survival of indigenous peoples in Colombia. It stated:

The organization says guerrilla groups, state security forces and paramilitaries are responsible for grave human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples. These abuses include killings, enforced disappearances and kidnappings, sexual abuse of women, recruitment of child soldiers, persecution of Indigenous leaders and forced displacement of communities from land that is rich in economic potential.

People are quite literally forced from their land because they live in areas that are valued for their natural resources, including oil and minerals. Amnesty has stated that the situation of indigenous people in Colombia is nothing short of an emergency. Until countries like Canada recognize the gravity of this situation and exert much needed pressure on the Colombian government, there is a real risk that entire indigenous cultures may be eradicated. Signing tax treaties is not exerting pressure. It is simply going along with what is happening there.

According to the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, ONIC, the survival of 32 different indigenous people in Colombia is at risk as a result of the armed conflict, the impacts of large-scale economic projects and a lack of state support. According to ONIC, at least 114 indigenous men, women and children were killed, many others threatened, and thousands driven from their land in 2009 alone, in one year alone.

In its latest report, Amnesty International says the threats facing indigenous people are intensifying and is calling on guerrilla groups and state security forces to respect the rights of indigenous people not to be dragged into hostilities, and equally importantly, to respect the rights of indigenous people to own and control the land on which they depend for their cultures and livelihoods. Tragically, indigenous leaders in communities that try to defend their land rights commonly experience threats, killings and mass displacement.

Colombia's ongoing armed conflict has affected millions across the country and left tens of thousands dead, tortured and forcibly disappeared. The vast majority of victims are civilians. In the last seven years, more than 1,595 indigenous people were forcibly killed or disappeared as a result of the armed conflict, and in 4,700 collective reports, threats were reported. In the vast majority of cases, these crimes have not been properly investigated, nor have the perpetrators ever been brought to justice.

Just as with trade unionists, the death toll is rising and still the Conservative government is determined to pursue trade agreements that are highly questionable and to enact a tax treaty that is equally questionable.

As Amnesty International testified at the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade in November 2009, one of the most worrying trends is a dramatic increase in the number of Colombians forced to flee from their homes, as many as 380,000 in 2008, and there are more every day. That brings the total number of internally displaced people in Colombia to between three million and four million, among the highest in the world, and it is growing.

Forced displacement has paved the way for misappropriation of lands, mostly by paramilitaries but also by guerrilla groups. It is estimated that more than four million hectares of land have been stolen by paramilitaries in this way. Displacement is one of the greatest threats facing indigenous communities, as in the case of Colombia.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that this happens in oil and rich minerals, and remarkable biodiversity. International mining, agribusiness and those who extract oil have a vested interest in these territories, all at the expense of people who have a right to live on these lands. We know that multinationals, including Canadian businesses, are interested in Colombia and are participating in the exploitation of resources.

According to the director of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights in Colombia, when this displacement to urban centres occurs, it becomes very complicated. Since most of the indigenous women do not speak Spanish very well, the immensity of the city frightens them with its anonymity and lack of solidarity among residents. The women face new problems in raising their children and relating to their partners because the city is not a customary environment.

In addition to this uncomfortable environment is the anguish of leaving their homes and running with whatever little they had or could carry in order to outrun death and desolation. Accepting new, unfamiliar realities and activities not traditional in indigenous cultures results in culture shock and disorientation. People experience a way of life and language radically different from their own.

This fracturing can result in a breakdown of cultural continuity, as young people find themselves in alien environments and deprived of the social and cultural networks and practices necessary for the survival of their communities. Displaced people are at heightened risk of destitution, sexual violence, exploitation by criminal gangs, armed groups and discrimination. Even in the places in which they seek refuge, they may face further intimidation or violence and have to flee once again.

The inadequate state response by the Colombian government to the needs of internally displaced communities means that some people return to the dangerous situations that they fled. Without support or safeguards that should be provided by the state, the right to traditional lands is crucial to these indigenous people and the right to support is equally crucial. It is vital as an element in terms of their sense of identity, livelihood, way of life, and it is crucial for their future.

This brings me to the bill that is before us. This bill, as I said before, is of profound concern because it enables the government. It enables Colombia to abrogate its responsibilities. It is completely inadequate for any country to say that this is just a tax treaty, that the government of that country should be allowed to do whatever that government wishes. When one considers murder, torture and the displacement of people, we are treading on very dangerous ground here in our association, both through the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and this tax treaty legislation.

It is clear that the members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party want nothing more than for Canada to move ahead with the CCFTA despite all the human, environmental and ethical costs. I think that we have to answer the ethical questions that are put forward by this discussion. I wonder what Canadians would say if they knew that, in last month's legislative elections in Colombia, independent foreign observers reported vote buying and fraud that allowed narco-paramilitary candidates to maintain influence over the Colombian congress.

I wonder what they would think about the plea to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation from Methodist Church of Colombia Bishop Juan Alberto Cardona during his visit to Canada in November 2007, when the bishop said:

--but we know from other places like Mexico that these agreements might create more wealth for wealthy people, but they make inequalities worse. Whatever new wealth is created does not reach the poor people.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement was signed behind the backs of the Colombian people, without any real participation from civil society and without any study on the impacts. Now we are proposing to move ahead with a tax treaty, again, I would say, against the wishes of the people of Colombia.

This is something that must be made very clear to this Parliament and to the people of Canada.

The stage is set for further and increased human rights violations in Colombia. We know that the Uribe government is looking for re-election. We know that this will give it carte blanche. Colombians have asked Canadian society, this Parliament, to demonstrate solidarity with Colombian people by mobilizing against the CCFTA. We did not listen to them. We are moving ahead with that. I think that is a great travesty.

Likewise, I think we should be very careful about moving ahead with this tax treaty.

When I began my remarks, I said that the fight against the CCFTA was principled. I have not changed my mind. How can our country contemplate any treaty that legitimizes such a corrupt government as the Uribe government? I believe Bill S-3 would exacerbate this. Therefore, I believe we need to split Bill S-3 so we can go ahead with treaties with Greece and Turkey.

We should not be accessories to the crimes committed against Colombia workers, the Colombian environment, Colombians of African descent and indigenous Colombians by signing a treaty with any government that sanctions murder, rape, the dispossession of people and that sanctions drug dealing and crimes against the human community. Let us rather say in one voice that no treaty, be it a trade treaty or a tax treaty, is something on which Canada is prepared to embark when there are such risks to human dignity.

Because we value human rights, human life and the legitimate aspirations of the Colombian people, let us refuse to engage in anything that might give credibility to the Uribe government and to the things that it represents in terms of its behaviour. Let us stand here together and divide the bill to ensure that Greece and Turkey's tax treaties are respected, but let us not proceed with anything with the Colombian government.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear my colleague from Winnipeg talk about the implications of tax policy, with having done so much research on it, because those implications affect so much of what we do in this place, primarily the government's ability and willingness to collect taxes fairly across the country. Are there special understandings within the political class here, the cabinet, and those families that can even afford to even consider things like tax havens?

I suspect that most Canadians watching this have not contemplated with their families around the dinner table what to do with their tax haven structures this year. Most Canadians are struggling to make ends meet and pay their fair share of taxes, and are willing to do so, but it is when they hear stories of the excessively rich families in Canada making a certain amount of money, wanting to avoid taxes and then skipping town, essentially.

Some of these same folks end up getting a little pin on their lapels or the Order of Canada from prime ministers for their great and dutiful work for Canadians. The irony and the hypocrisy in that alone smacks so hard against Canadian values.

Bill S-3 is a bill that has come forward from the Senate. It is great to know that every once in a while the senators rouse themselves from their afternoon naps and produce something. However, it is a bill that does not necessarily mean a lot in its particulars but, in general, has implications for all of us.

In Bill S-3, as my friend from Winnipeg said, the government quite intentionally included a country that may cause problems, because it is trying to do a free trade deal with Colombia right now and now it is slipping it into this taxation bill. It is striking to me and to others why these three particular countries are locked together and why it is of interest to the government to include such diverse economies together into one piece, but the government has chosen to do that so we must work with that.

The issue that is in front of us is how to deal with this bill. The NDP has suggested, quite rightly, that the bill should be split, that it should be broken up into its contingent parts so we can deal with each reality on its own. The government at this point has refused that, but let us look at the pattern of how the government operates when it comes to making legislation and the role of the government.

Right now at the finance committee, members are dealing with Bill C-9, which, by all measures and accounts, is a Trojan Horse bill. It is supposed to be a budget bill but it is an omnibus bill, which means that it includes a whole bunch of different pieces. The government has included things like raising airport taxes and the selling off of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the largest crown corporation in this country. It is the nuclear industry. It has also included a watering down of environmental regulations on, of all things, the oil and gas industry, which is quite ironic to think about doing that right now. All of these things are embedded into a piece of legislation that is meant to be a budget bill, a finance bill. That is a cynical form of politics. It is a form of politics that says that it does not want to debate these things on their merits.

Let us just take one of those pieces as an example, the selling of AECL. Canadians, over the 50 years of this crown corporation existing, have put somewhere north of $21 billion into it to develop the nuclear industry here in Canada, both on the energy side and creating isotopes. That is a lot of money. What else could have been done with $21 billion? However, here we are and the money has been put in.

It actually says in legislation that was crafted in this place that in order to sell or break up AECL, the government must bring a bill before the House for debate. That makes sense. That is reasonable. That is what every other country around the world does. However, rather than debate the sale of AECL or how to break it up, or any of these other things, the government instead has slipped it into a budget bill and has said that it is a matter of confidence.

It also tacked in this thing about raising taxes at airports. This is from a government that is constantly claiming that it is cutting taxes. It is becoming laughable because at the same time it is raising them, like the HST.

I am a member from British Columbia and I was just at our first farmers' market in Terrace, B.C. this weekend. I manned the HST booth for a couple of hours and heard from constituents in British Columbia how frustrated they are that when they flick on the evening news they hear Conservative minister after minister talk about their glorious tax cuts, when they know in British Columbia and in Ontario that they are moving the HST onto the backs of hard-working families who will pay more taxes.

It was a tax that was brought in by a British Columbia premier who promised not to do it. The Conservatives pretend they had nothing to do with it, forgetting that their fingerprints are all over a $1.6 billion bribe that they sent to Ontario. The government took $1.5 billion from taxpayers to bribe another level of government to raise taxes on those same taxpayers. This is the way the Conservative government cuts taxes.

It is unbelievable that those guys can still walk upright and claim the high moral ground on taxation when they took $1.5 billion and slipped it into a budget bill to raise taxes in British Columbia and another $3.5 billion or so to Ontario. That is remarkable.

What is remarkable is that the folks who were coming up to us at this farmers market were from all political persuasions. Folks from across the political spectrum were saying that whether it was this type of tax or another type of tax, the process stunk. They were signing a petition so a free and fair vote could be held in British Columbia to decide things.

Bill S-3 is another effort at talking about things without actually doing anything. We have asked for evidence from the government about the effect of these treaties. The government has signed, I believe, 87 agreements. The Conservatives think they are great free traders because they have signed these agreements. They say that they are fantastic, thereby implying that something actually has changed in the world.

It must have cost a lot of money to print 87 treaties, never mind sending negotiators all over the world to make these things happen. These things are not free. We have invested in these things. We are asking for a return on our investment.

We want to know what has changed in tax policy. Have we caught those folks who take their money offshore to a tax haven? Have we recovered any funds from the people who have earned their money from investments by Canadians and then skipped town before the bill is due? The government has not provided any evidence.

This leads one to some suspicions. This is again the portrayal of action without anything actually changing. This is a level of government of which people are growing increasingly tired. If the government is going to do something, then it should do it.

I come from a remote rural part of northern British Columbia. When somebody says he or she is going to do something, often it is a handshake and the agreement is made. Then we go forth and do it.

To set up all these agreements with no evidence as to whether they work or not, or which kind work better for which situation, is governance by a certain ideology rather than governance by any kind of thoughtfulness and debate.

With this bill, the government is lumping three countries together so it can get the numbers up. It is signing more treaties, all the while refusing a fundamental principle of trade, which has been evolving, growing and maturing around the world for the last 50 years.

That is the counter to the free trade ideology. We can trade with other partner countries but we have to do it fairly. Everybody knows that nothing is free in this world. Even the terminology free trade must sound good, it must mean good things. However, when we ask about fair trade, when we ask about trade that is on good terms with our trading partners, that would improve working standards, that would take care of the environment, that would ensure we do not support regimes that we would never tolerate here, the government is silent. It is not interested in those types of trade agreements, and we see that with Colombia.

Our member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been pushing hard to get some sort of review of the human rights situation in Colombia. He has made some progress with members after a massive campaign involving thousands of Canadians. They would like to know that their trading partners are living up to some sort of standards, some sort of requirement, for the privilege of trading.

That is how trade works. It is a privileged status. It is not a right. Countries do not trade with each other based on any fundamental rights. Countries trade as a privilege. It is the same with operating a business. It is not a right to operate a business in Canada. It is a privilege. One has to follow certain rules and those rules cannot be broken.

If someone ducks out on taxes, the government comes after that individual, and rightly so, except for a particular class of Canadians. When we get into the billions of dollars, suddenly a whole new set of rules apply. People go to what is called a tax haven, and tax havens, as has been described earlier today, are set up by countries that have a skeleton of a banking sector. They are often islands. They are often very small countries, sometimes democratic, sometimes not. The list of prestigious Canadian families who have their money socked away in these tax havens is astounding.

We see it time and time again, whether it is Liberal or Conservative governments. A little private meeting goes on and Revenue Canada says that is all right. We saw it with a former prime minister, for goodness sake, who got caught evading taxes. It was Brian Mulroney, a Conservative. Those folks used to know him, then they pretended they did not him and now they know him again, I think. What did he do once he got caught. He cut a deal with Revenue Canada. If he paid back a portion of those taxes, it would be satisfied.

I wonder if the government offers that same deal to the average hard-working Canadian taxpayers. If they are having a hard time this year or last year paying their taxes, Revenue Canada will cut them a deal and they will only pay 50%. Of course not. The system would not work that way.

However, when we move up into this upper echelon, if it is a Brian Mulroney, or a Bronfman, or somebody who has some connections to this place, they can cut deals with the government to pay half of the taxes they actually owe. How does that make any sense? How can those guys call themselves fiscally conservative if, at the same time, they allow tax avoidance to go on? How can they be running deficits while, at the same time, taxes owed to the good people of Canada are not paid. The only reason is because there are connections, there is the familiarity, there is a need to have some sort of comfort with certain Canadians who are of a certain wealth.

On the agreements with countries, we hope, as Canadians, that our presence in the world, our ability to connect with other countries is for a betterment of the world. We do not go forth, whether it is through military or diplomacy or trade, hoping to make the world a worse place. Part of our underlying belief as Canadians is that we have accomplished something in our country that is, as some have said, a country that works well in practice but not in theory. We want to be a symbol and an example on certain issues, particularly, for other countries struggling to establish a democratic rule of law, struggling to establish women's rights and rights for minorities, rights for the gay-lesbian community. Canadians feel okay with promoting those things overseas. We hope we do that through our diplomatic core and our military, from time to time.

However, when we look at the free trade ideology coming from the government, all these other issues get short shrift. One wonders if the government even believes that trade is a mechanism and a vehicle for promoting human rights and environmental standards around the world. Conversely, and I think this is much closer to the reality for those guys. The very nature and vision of the role of Canada, the very vision of Canada promoted by the Conservative government is not one that supports human rights. It is not one that supports environmental protection or the rights of first nations people. The reason I can make that strong statement is there is so much proof that the government does not mind cutting access to women's programs. The government does not seem to mind cutting back funding for certain groups that it does not like if their ideology is not right. It does not mind watering down environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. In fact, the government suggests the oil and gas industry can regulate itself, which might be better.

In committee this morning we heard that our national regulator that governs oil and gas for most of the country, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, had said that it was no good to have these regulations any more, that we should just be goal-oriented in our rules. Let us not have rules, in fact. Let us just have guidelines. Would it be a good idea to just have goal-oriented guidelines for driving regulations or for the safety of our homes and our streets? Of course not. We put regulations in place.

As my father-in-law, who works for a compensation board in British Columbia, says that a lot of the rules and regulations that govern industry for workers' safety are written blood. What he means is those rules were not invented out of nowhere. They were often invented after there had been an accident. In his case, workers' safety, somebody died, or somebody was hurt seriously. They realized they had to change the rules guiding construction, or a certain industry. The had to make them stronger so people could go to work knowing they would come home at the end of the day. That is the principle from where regulations and rules come. There is not a little office of people sitting around Ottawa, not that I am aware of, who make up rules for the sake of it. We make up rules and regulations so they enable good practice to flourish, so they give people a fair opportunity earn a decent buck to be social citizens. There is a social licence to operate that is buried within it.

However, when it comes to the regulations, the government promotes a Canada that does not necessarily belive in this, that industry can self-regulate. If we look to the Gulf of Mexico right now, we see what happens when an industry is given more self-regulation.

This does not always happen in one shot. It happens over time. There is a creep, they call it. It creeps edge by edge. We saw it in the stock market in the U.S. and in Canada. We put rules and guidelines in place to try to contain some of the greed that would be rampant in any stock market, because it is a profitable place to make money. We put those in place because not everybody was very ethical. Some traders want to bend and break rules and rip off their investors. In American, it was the Glass-Steagall act. In Canada, we had a bunch of other stuff, but the creep happened.

Bit by bit, the Americans eroded some of their guidelines. They eroded the rules and decided to do outcome-based guidelines. The outcome-based guideline for the stock market is to make money. If people keep making money, that is all right, but they will not be guided. The invisible hand of the free market will save them at the end of the day.

The marketplace is a magical thing. It can bring billions of dollars into new technology, ideas that spur innovation and that ambition can be allowed to flourish. However, it needs to have some rules and some sort of containment so people who try to do the right thing are rewarded and those who are crooks are thrown in jail. We take away all those regulations and they make guidelines. We make goal-oriented objectives and we get what we get, which is the worst of the worst are able to manipulate the system to their best abilities and make money in unethical ways.

Now we move to trade in Bill S-3, the bill from the Senate. We need to have these tax deals so people are not double taxed. That is a very fine principle. It is something we can support. Then we look at all the existing tax haven countries. Has the government signed any treaties with those countries, the places where people actually set up tax havens?

I have not known Turkey to be a great and rampant source of tax havens for the wealthy and rich around the globe, because it is not. We have the list of the places that are. Transparency International runs a list of the most corrupt regimes every year. Some of those are also the regimes where these tax havens exist. All one has to do is pay somebody off to not pay any taxes in the country, to never have to declare it and to have one board member.

Former Prime Minister Martin ran his whole shipping company under different flags of convenience. Why are they convenient? Because if people have shipping companies like the former Prime Minister of Canada did and they do not want to follow Canadian, American or European law, they fly them under the flags of some backwater African country, which has no rules or regulations for shipping. Therefore, they do not have to stand by any labour or environmental laws because they have this convenient flag flying over their ships.

The problem with the government's ideology on this is it also applies a flag of convenience to its trade policy. It uses trade in a convenient way to accomplish only a very narrow band of things. There are those of us who believe strongly that trade with a country can be an opening of a conversation about improving the conditions for people on both sides of the deal, both Canada and the country with which we are trading.

There is some evidence that this has happened around the world. In the last 25 years, we have seen steady improvements for the lowest-income people across the globe in some regions. However, it is false to think that this just happens naturally and that it is some byproduct that will happen no matter what we do. Very strong evidence exists to show this is the case.

We traded with Iraq during the entire Saddam Hussein regime. We bought its oil. The Americans bought its oil. We did not put a single stipulation in place. We had to drive furiously at a previous Conservative government to get a proper regime set up against South Africa when apartheid existed. We had to make the moral implication. The argument against any trade sanctions against South Africa was that free trade had to reign. That was the most fundamental principle. If we just traded with South Africa, it would eventually let apartheid dissipate.

Of course that was never going to happen. It would still be there today if the world did not get together and say that, as part of human trade, we would insist on human rights. As part of our trade with South Africa, to buy its resources and products, we would insist that it also treated all its citizens with some level of dignity. It was a good moment for the world when we finally decided that. Conservative ideological thinkers were against it. They opposed every step of the way.

We see it again here today. We need good trade policy in Canada. We are a trading nation. We need to shut down tax havens around the world and have people, whatever their social standing, pay their fair share of taxes. It is the right thing to do.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-3, which originates in the Senate. Interestingly enough, there are a considerable number of bills that are coming to us from the Senate this year. This is An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

The bill relates to Canada's continuing efforts to update and modernize its income tax treaties with other countries. At present, Canada has tax treaties in place with 87 countries, a figure that was mentioned by one of the speakers earlier today. The bill would implement three new treaties that Canada has signed with Colombia, Greece and Turkey.

It has been pointed out by several speakers today that we are in a reactive position in this House. We are not in a position to amend these agreements. These agreements have been negotiated like a trade agreement would be negotiated between the two countries. The agreements are signed, and then put into legislation and brought before the House.

At this point I would like to make the observation that I believe the government, had it been smart in this situation, would have split these treaties into three separate bills rather than putting all three treaties into one bill. Bill S-3 should really have been written as relating to only one of the treaties. We then would have had three bills to deal with and that would have made matters easier for all of the members here in the House, but that is not the case so we will have some difficulties with the bill once we send it to committee.

I would also like to mention that the bill, as well as many others, is going around the block for the second time. It had already made it through the Senate last year, before the Prime Minister prorogued the House, and we are back doing it again only a year later.

Another point is that the bill does not represent any new or significant change in policy. The tax treaties covered by the bill are patterned on the OECD Model Tax Convention, which is accepted by most countries around the world. As a matter of fact, I believe I read that there are several hundred of these treaties in existence. Because it is an OECD model, other countries adopt the model and simply negotiate with their group of partners.

What the agreement does is avoid double taxation, which we can all agree is an admirable goal. It also is designed to prevent international tax avoidance and evasion, and that is another extremely important area, although I have to question just how effective these agreements are in terms of dealing with tax avoidance and evasion.

For example, given that we have had 87 of these treaties going back now for a good number of years, since I believe the 1970s, one would think that someone would have done an audit of the treaties and could at least present us with some facts and figures as to how effective they are. It does not make any sense to me that we would have signed 87 treaties, and we are proposing another dozen to be signed and more to be negotiated, when we cannot quantify and qualify how effective the previous 87 have been.

Clearly, the government must have some sort of information as to how effective these treaties are because it keeps signing them. That is why I asked the parliamentary secretary, when he introduced and spoke to the bill in the House earlier today, if he could present information as to how much tax has been recovered through Revenue Canada based on evasion and avoidance in other countries covered by these agreements.

He admitted that he did not have that information. I believe that he has undertaken to try to get the information, but once again I cannot guarantee that that will ever happen.

A lot of this could have been avoided if the government had set up briefings, as the ministers of the Manitoba government did, under Conservative governments and under the NDP government. To be fair not all ministers were good at it. I should not say good at it, but not all ministers actually did it. I can recall several Conservative ministers, as well as NDP ministers, who were just excellent at calling together the opposition members, or any members who wanted to attend a briefing, to explain the bill to them.

It has worked. I think that almost every minister who has done this will claim that it is money in the bank and is a very smart way to proceed. If the adversarial process is cut out and any interested members of Parliament are brought into a briefing so that they can find out about a bill, it would save a lot of time in debate. At least the information we are dealing with would be consistent and everyone would have accurate information.

I would really like to ask those questions. I would also like to ask, how many people take advantage of these treaties? How many people are affected by the treaties? Are we negotiating an international treaty for one or two cases a year, or are we negotiating an international treaty for hundreds and hundreds of cases in a year? Unless we can do an audit of the process to prove that we are actually gaining something, then why would we be negotiating these treaties?

Another question I would have is, are these treaties consistent? The argument is that they are based on the OECD wording, but they are negotiated between two countries. I have checked two of the treaties, and I do not believe they are entirely consistent with one another. Yes, they follow an OECD model and pattern, but it seems to me that there may be differences between the treaties.

We are being given this bill and are expected to deal with it as summarily as possible, but we are missing information. We do not have the government putting up any speakers, as with quite a number of bills right now, so we do not get to ask the government members any questions about the issues.

It is little wonder that we end up being very reluctant to send these bills forward. We end up being very suspicious about the intent of the bills, even though there may not be any sinister movement or ideas behind the bills. We have to question them, and it slows up getting them to committee in the first place. Then it slows them up in committee once they get there.

I think the government could streamline its processes better and would get more results by having briefings in advance of bills like this, especially bills that may, in fact, have a number of serious questions attached to them.

In 1971 the federal government undertook a review and overhaul of Canada's taxation system. That would be during the first Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau, I believe. The Liberals reviewed and overhauled Canada's tax system. Among other initiatives the review involved the expansion of the network of tax treaties with other countries.

Interestingly enough, we were looking at tax avoidance way back in the 1970s. I believe one of the earlier speakers talked about $6 billion, and that is probably a conservative figure, in tax havens around the world. Clearly, there is a lot of work that has to be done, cracking open these tax havens.

I know the Bloc members are extremely interested in the tax haven issue and they have talked about it, certainly in relation to the throne speech and other pieces of information. My time is not unlimited and I have a lot to talk about.

We have all these governments over many years making declarations that they will cut down on tax havens and close the loopholes. How many times have we heard governments say they will do this? They have the entire power of the state behind them to do it, and they are spectacularly unsuccessful. Just to show how important a single person can be in this world, in the last year an employee of a bank in Switzerland, a little guy, took a backup tape containing the names of thousands of people, German citizens, Canadian citizens, citizens from other countries, who were avoiding taxes on undeclared income in these banks. I do not know what his motives were exactly, but whatever they were, he sold the tape, and the German government bought the records that dealt with their own citizens. He may have sold it to other countries too. The ripple effect was that Canadian taxpayers were rushing for the exits to take advantage of the tax amnesty offered by this government to voluntarily declare their undeclared income.

The moral of the story is that Canadian citizens are free to seek out and invest in tax havens in other parts of the world, not pay taxes on their capital gains, on the interest they get on this money, and the worst that happens to them is that they can simply walk into the nearest Canada Revenue Agency office and make a voluntary declaration. It is called an amnesty. If they do that, they do not even get a slap on the wrist. They simply pay the taxes and I suppose they are told to behave themselves in the future. If they do not voluntarily declare, they would be in trouble if they get caught, which is why so many of them have been voluntarily declaring.

This is an example of one little guy, one worker in a bank, stealing a tape for whatever reason and selling it to the government and essentially setting off a firestorm of activity. I believe there are also movements afoot now under the Obama administration, predicated more on the terrorism issue than the whole idea of trying to collect taxes from tax evaders. The reason the Americans are putting pressure on the Swiss banking system and other banks that hide information and keep it private is that they want to uncover moneys that are being stored in these facilities by terrorists. That is the motivation.

However, the Americans were happy to avoid doing that all these years. The Swiss system got rich over the years by taking money from drug cartels, arms dealers and all sorts of unsavoury organizations and people. In fact, drugs dealers and arms dealers who put millions and probably billions of dollars into Swiss banks over the years in many cases were actually getting zero interest on their money. That is the explanation why Swiss banks are able to lend out the money. Back in 1987 when Canada's interest rates were in the 18% range and we could buy GICs at the Royal Bank, or treasury bills, at 18% or 20% for a month, we could get money from Switzerland for 6% from Swiss banks.

I am told that many of the people involved in dirty money essentially put that money there and expect nothing. They are just happy to have the money protected and to have the veil of secrecy and privacy at their disposal.

They will put millions and millions of dollars in a Swiss bank with no interest, none whatsoever. Of course that is why the bank can turn around and lend it out at low rates.

This system lasted for many years but it is about time we, as a group of countries, started to crack down on people who try to avoid paying taxes.

I turned on CPAC last night and saw Mr. Snowdy talking about Rahim Jaffer, former MP, and how he was alleged to be setting up accounts in a bank in Belize. Belize is not on our list of countries that have treaties like this, but the question I would have is this. Are people like that, who are trying to plan out their careers in tax evasion, looking at our list? Are they looking at the list of countries where we have these tax treaties and trying to avoid the tax treaties?

Of the 80-plus countries we have on the list, where we have tax treaties, we have Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria and then we have Barbados. I looked through the list of countries and I do not see any that come across as tax shelters until I get to Barbados under the Bs.

There we have a case where we have one of these tax treaties in place. We had the Bloc critic speaking this morning, and by the way he apologized for Lichtenstein. He and I checked it because it was not on my list. He admitted that it in fact is not on the list.

He explained in very good detail about the tax haven situation with regard to Barbados, I believe. He was explaining that the OECD has a tool to detect tax havens. He said there are four criteria that it uses to be able to tell whether a country is a tax haven: the taxes of a country were either low or zero, there was no transparency, there were no filings to be made, there was no due diligence and there was no economic activity. I believe he was describing a situation where we had an increase in Canadian investment in Bermuda, Barbados and the Cayman Islands from $30 billion up to $90 billion, and these are countries where we do not have these tax agreements.

There is a grey list and I believe Belize is on the grey list.

I have no idea why Mr. Jaffer would have chosen Belize, because Belize is not necessarily even one of the countries on the best-tax-haven list, but still we certainly do not have a treaty with it.

Grenada is on the list. Just several weeks ago there was a report in the press about Grenada and how in the last two or three years there was a spectacular tax evasion scheme going on using a Grenadian bank. I believe an American or Canadian citizen went to Grenada and set up the bank, and it was just a front. It was a rented office. There was no real bank there at all. Millions and millions of dollars were being bilked from North Americans.

So there is obviously more at play here than what is involved in these tax treaties. Before we go around signing another 80 of these treaties, we should find out just what we have gained by signing the 80 we have right now.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-3, An Act to implement conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Colombia, Greece and Turkey for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with Bill S-3, the tax convention bill, followed by Bill C-15, nuclear liability. It would be by intention to call these two bills tomorrow if they are not completed today.

Might I add that, thankfully, as my hon. colleague noted, next week is a constituency work week.

When the House returns on May 25, it is my intention to call Bill C-3, gender equity in Indian registration, which will be at the report stage. Following Bill C-3 will be Bill C-20, the National Capital Act, and Bill C-10, Senate term limits.

My hon. colleague asked about the committee of the whole. I would inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) I would like to designate May 27 for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates of the Department of National Defence and May 31 for the Department of Natural Resources.

Friday, May 28 shall be an allotted day.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-3.

As my colleague from Outremont mentioned earlier in the House, we have great difficulties with the way the government is approaching legislation generally.

There are principles in this place that have been well established for generations and have been respected generally by all parties. What we have seen over the last few years, but particularly in the last few months, is a throwing out of those conventions of appreciation for democratic debate and respect for this place, respect for Parliament itself. We are seeing this illustrated once again by Bill S-3.

The first issue is the fact that the bill comes from the Senate. We must remember that the Conservatives, prior to the last election, promised that it would bring democracy to the Senate but they have appointed Conservative associates to the Senate. The Senate is now a legislative place with largely Conservative appointees.

Canadians do not want to see the perpetuation of a fundamentally anti-democratic system imposed on Canadian democracy and yet we are now seeing bills pushed through the Senate, where there are a bunch of Conservative Party appointees, who are responsible to nobody but the Prime Minister himself, creating this legislation and bringing it into the House of Commons. If that is not a fundamental rejection of the democratic principles on which this country is founded, I do not know what is.

When we couple that with prorogation, a refusal to table in this Parliament documents that should be, as the Speaker has ruled in the past, tabled in Parliament, we see a systematic obstruction of the democratic principles in Canada that have served Canada so very well. We now have a bill referred from the Senate.

The second principle that is being violated by the bill is the fact that the government has cleverly tried to insert a poison pill. The bill itself is a rather anodyne bill, a tax treaty bill that deals with Greece and Turkey.

Although concerns were raised earlier today in the House by a Liberal member, I do not think anyone in this place would have any strong differences with Greek fiscal policy or Turkish fiscal policy. We understand that their democracies are relatively advanced systems. Instead of submitting Greece and Turkey to a parliamentary vote, the government deliberately inserted the poison pill of the Colombian regime into the bill. Rather than respecting parliamentary debate and have two separate bills, the government deliberately tried to muddy the water and insert a poison pill. It is absolutely ridiculous and it shows the complete lack of respect that the Conservative government has for democracy.

Although we have no objections to the Greek and Turkish treaties on fiscal management, the tax treaties themselves, we will have to move in committee to split the bill so we can consider the case of Colombia. It is pretty appalling that the Conservatives would do this, but I do not think Canadians are surprised by anything the Conservative government does any more. It simply has no respect for democratic traditions, period.

The backgrounder for Bill S-3 put out by the Minister of Finance is very clear. I will quote it because it is a pretty strong illustration of how the government proceeds. What it says in the backgrounder, which is supposed to speak to all of these tax bills that are brought forward, is that Canada “will conclude no new tax treaty, or update an existing tax treaty, unless the treaty partner country agrees to abide by the highest international standards of tax information exchange”.

Anyone who knows anything about Colombia and the Colombian industry would know that Columbia is the producer of about 90% of the world's illicit cocaine industry. We are talking about a $90 billion a year industry, produced by drug lords, produced by paramilitary gangs connected to the government, produced by guerillas, produced by all sectors. There is no taxation system around this massive industry in Colombia. Therefore, the highest possible standards of fiscal probity cannot be maintained in what is a narco-economy.

The Conservatives and Liberals have admitted to this in the past. They have said that this trade agreement has been condemned by every major human rights organization around the world, particularly in Canada, every major civil society group, every major labour union in Canada and almost all of the Colombian trade unions except those directly affiliated with the Colombian government or under the thumb of the Colombian government. The Conservatives say that we need this treaty because it will eliminate the narco-economy. They know this is significantly the largest industry in Colombia and is not part of the tax foundation, the so-called prudent fiscal management of the Colombian government.

Therefore, getting back to the backgrounder which says “agreeing to abide by the highest international standards”, Colombia has already failed those standards even before the treaty was signed. Even before it was brought to the House, it had manifestly failed with a $90 billion a year narco-economy, not subject to taxation laws. Yet the Conservatives have the nerve to throw in this failed narco-economy, failed fiscal framework into a bill that affects Greece and Turkey.

We have to hand it to the Conservatives. The Colombia regime has been described as Hell's Angels with a public relations firm. Nowhere is it clearer than that when we look at the Conservative government trying to endorse Colombian fiscal policy with a $90 billion a year cocaine industry, an illicit industry outside if that fiscal framework.

Conservatives will say that this has nothing to do with the government. Anyone who is actually following the debate around why the United States Congress has refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Colombia, why the European Union is refusing to ratify a free trade agreement with Colombia, why EFTA is refusing to ratify an agreement with Colombia, anyone who does the due diligence, does the homework as a member of Parliament, and certainly the 37 members of the NDP have done their homework, their research and have actually found out what goes on in Colombia, would know that the Defense Intelligence Agency in the United States very clearly identified the Colombian president as being affiliated with drug lords.

In fact, in its document, which was released under access to information just a few years ago, it stated very clearly that President Uribe had risen to power through his connections to the Medellin drug cartel and was a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar. They are a notorious drug lord and a notorious drug cartel and the president is in their pocket.

Why would the Conservatives want to cozy up to a regime like that? Perhaps someone might say, that this was before, that he rose to power with the drug lords and the drug cartels, but now he is a nice guy. They might say that he has a good public relations firm, that we should treat him royally, that we should sign privileged trade agreements with him and that we should pretend the fiscal framework he runs is of the highest international standards.

However, we know the story does not end there. We know his connections with those murderous paramilitary thugs who kill dozens of people every year, who kill aboriginal Colombians or chase them off their land, with more forced violence displacements than anywhere else on the planet, who kill more labour activists than anywhere else on the planet. We see the forced displacement of Afro-Colombians, more than anywhere else. The Colombian Association of Jurists talks about the repeated and ongoing sexual torture, sexual assault and killing of Colombian women.

These are all present day circumstances that Conservatives tell us to disregard. They tell us that he is a nice guy, that he shook their hands so he must be great. They want us to forget about the past, forget about the drug cartels, forget about Pablo Escobar, forget about the killings and brutal rapes of children and women in Colombia. They want us to endorse his regime. They want us to think that he has excellent international standards on tax information and fiscal exchange, even when he does not.

The Conservatives are trying to make that argument, but this corner of the House has done its due diligence. We have done the work to find out what is going on behind this bloody, murderous regime, the secret police, the murderous paramilitary thugs and the Colombian military. They kill hundreds of innocent people every year under this horrifying rubric of false positives.

We know full well what is involved in this. That is why we will move to separate out Greece and Turkey, which meet those excellent standards, those standards that do not exist in Colombia. We should not say that this treaty-partner country agrees to abide by the highest international standards of tax information when it clearly does not, with a $90 billion illicit cocaine industry. At the same time, we should not allow the government to make another promise that it will break. It promised to clean up human rights abuses and it did not.

We will look to break the bill into two halves: one to deal with Greece and Turkey, the other with Colombia.