Debates of April 6th, 2000

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we begin second reading of Bill C-25, which implements certain measures from last year's budget, i.e. the finance minister's 1999-2000 budget.

I cannot say that it gives me great pleasure to discuss this bill. Everyone will remember how terribly disappointed we were by the budget brought down last year by the Minister of Finance.

We were disappointed because, once again, the Minister of Finance did not tell us the whole truth about how the nation's finances were handled. He did not tell us about the various avenues open to him to provide relief to taxpayers and the disadvantaged, to introduce truly constructive measures, to put a stop to cuts in social programs, for example.

Moreover, I have a clear recollection that on that date, that is February 17, 1999, the Globe and Mail minced no words in describing the Minister of Finance as lacking in imagination, and in stating that he had never been in a situation of managing growth and surpluses, and ought to let someone else take over.

The budget brought down just a few weeks ago was no exception to the rule. It is, in all aspects, along the same lines as last year's, in other words, disappointing and drab. Last year's budget was so drab in fact that I can hardly keep my eyes open today when referring to it.

First of all, the Minister of Finance, sticking to tradition, both last year and this year—and this will go on until he quits, which we hope will be soon, because we are fed up with all his sneakiness—has hidden the true surplus from us.

Hon. members need only to look at the figures. Since 1994, if one took all the budgets, all the Minister of Finance's figures, one would see that every time he opened his mouth, speaking first of the deficit and only after of surpluses, within a few months, his forecasts were shown to be close to 100% off, sometimes even 150%.

In the 1999 budget, the one of interest to us here, the minister said “For this year 1999-2000”—the fiscal year that has just ended on March 31—“the surplus will be only $3 billion”. A scant few months later, in his economic update, exactly seven months after bringing down his budget, he informed us that his surplus for the last fiscal year might be as high as $5 billion. This means a difference of $2 billion in just a few months.

With the 2000-01 budget, this year's budget, a few weeks ago, the Minister of Finance again revised the figure for his surplus to $5.7 billion. That was at the end of February. The figure is therefore $2.5 billion more than it was two and a half months previously. The Fiscal Monitor of the Department of Finance has just brought out its most recent estimates based on the first ten months of the last fiscal year. It places the surplus for this fiscal year at nearly $12 billion. That is a bit of a difference.

Do you know what the Bloc Quebecois was saying as of February last year, when the Minister of Finance brought down his budget? The Bloc Quebecois said, based on the most reasonable assumptions, the information available to us over a year ago, that the surplus would be around $12 billion.

And so, doing an analysis using generally recognized parameters, a personal computer and a small team, not the hundreds of public servants in the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada, but with a few people, we succeeded, 12 months ahead, in predicting that the surplus for 1999-2000 would be about $12 billion, exactly as The Fiscal Monitor just said a few weeks ago, based on the first ten months of the last fiscal year.

We managed it not because we are smarter than other people. You will agree, and you have already said so to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are good. There is no doubt about it. We have not been wrong since 1994. When we make forecasts, we are rarely wrong.

When the Minister of Finance makes forecasts, he has always been wrong. They have not been minor mistakes. As I mentioned, he has been out by 100% or 150%. That is a lot. That denies people the opportunity of really evaluating what is available to this government to implement the measures expected of it. This impedes democracy. It is undemocratic to work this way, very undemocratic.

This does not give us the range of options. It does not tell us what the government could do to alleviate the plight of the neediest members of society.

The Minister of Finance shows up with so-called unexpected surpluses either because he was unable to foresee them or because he hid them from us for a whole year. He uses that money to lower the debt, or he thoughtlessly jumps the gun regarding certain expenditures and steps in provincial jurisdictions, just like the self-sufficient and know-it-all federal Minister of Health has been doing these past few months. This is what the minister is doing.

With the prospect of a surplus we had already estimated at $12 billion back then, we thought the Minister of Finance would take concrete measures to lower taxes and give taxpayers a break. Not only did he not do that with the potential $12 billion surplus in the last fiscal year, but he is not doing it this year either, when the surplus for fiscal year 2000-01 could exceed $21 billion.

The minister's tax reductions are ridiculously low this year and they were even lower last year. In fact, the results of these reductions are totally insignificant.

Let me give you an example. For the 1999-2000 fiscal year, middle income taxpayers, that is those who earn between $30,000 and $70,000, will save an average of $150 in taxes. This is over a period of 365 days. Just do the calculation. This will not even buy a cup of coffee.

But there were winners in 1999, as there were in the last budget—the rich. In 1999, if you were one of the lucky few with an income of $250,000 or higher, the elimination of the 3% surtax saved you over $3,500 in taxes.

You are a middle income earner. The federal government has been relying on you heavily since 1993 to help put its fiscal house in order. There is a hefty $12 billion surplus in 1999-2000 but it does not help middle income earners. Those who are already very rich get another break in the form of a $3,500 tax saving starting with the tax year for which we are now filing.

It is sad. The Minister of Finance tells us that there were tax cuts last year, and that there will also be some this year, but things are no better this year. In fiscal 2000-01, it will be pretty much the same—$150, $300, in real tax savings. Once again, with the cuts, the 5% surtax that remained, as well as the increase in the capital gains exclusion rate, it is those in the $250,000 plus income bracket that will benefit.

It is not $3,500. Another $4,000 has been added. Both measures taken together, i.e. last year's elimination of the 3% surtax, and this year's increase in the capital gains exclusion rate from 75% to 66%—33% of capital gains are not subject to any taxes—put another $4,000 in these folks' pockets. In two years, they have saved $7,500 in taxes. However, those earning between $30,000 and $70,000 had a tax saving of $300 for the entire year, and this has just been described as fair.

Last year, with the $12 billion in surplus, which was known about but deliberately concealed from us, the Minister of Finance could have revised the zero taxation levels, that is the point at which families start paying federal income tax.

In this connection, I will point out a few figures that demonstrate the considerable imbalance that exists between the federal taxation system and Quebec's system.

To take the example of a couple with two dependent children and one single employment income, the federal cut-off point after which they start to pay tax is $13,719. Do hon. members know at what point they start paying Quebec taxes? At $30,316. Hon. members see the imbalance here. Back in 1999, with a potential surplus of $12 billion, the Minister of Finance could have moved the zero tax threshold upward.

Let us take another example, a retired couple, age 65, with no children. They start paying federal income tax at the $20,000 level, while in Quebec the level is $26,000. This could have been brought back into balance. With less of a surplus available to it, Quebec has done more with less than the feds, with surplus funds coming out of their ears, not to mention out of the pockets of the Minister of Finance. However, what is spilling out of his pockets is not his money, but ours. It is the money of the middle income taxpayers, the largest group of taxpayers in Canada. Yet he has done nothing.

He could also have changed the employment insurance plan, this man who says he has a lot of compassion for the most disadvantaged. Since becoming the Minister of Finance, he has put people in the hole, tossed them out on the street. With his savage measures of the right, this minister who claims to have a social side, almost socialist the way he puts it, this man has pushed people at the threshold of middle income into a low income bracket. He has pushed them into poverty. He has thrown them into the pit of poverty. He did so in 1999 and is still doing it in 2000 with his latest budget.

He could have changed the employment insurance plan, which covers only 42% of the targeted clientele, the unemployed, who pay. We know, now, all workers pay into employment insurance, as do all employers.

When these people lose their job, fewer than half of them will benefit from employment insurance. Six out of ten unemployed persons are excluded from the employment insurance plan. He could have changed the plan.

We are not saying the plan has to be permissive, open, with money pouring out uncontrolled. We know that Department of Human Resources Development has no need for our suggestions on this subject. We know that in this department they stalk the unemployed in order to not give them what they are entitled to as benefits. They wake them up at 6 a.m. to make sure they are available for work, they treat them like robbers and cheaters.

We can see too how this department treats friends of the party. They grease their palms, they give them hush money. They get a $1.2 million grant, no questions asked, but unemployed workers are asked to return $5 of $200 received, because their benefits have been reviewed. They are hunted down like thieves.

The friends of the party are not treated like thieves. The federal government shuts it eyes and deliberately hands over the $1 million, not even requiring that any jobs be created. We have the HRDC scandal to prove it.

On another topic, the Minister of Finance could have overhauled the EI scheme. He could have arranged things so that most of those who pay premiums qualify. But no, he did not. He did not do so in 1999 with a $12 billion surplus, nor did he do so this year with a surplus of over $21 billion. When will he do so?

When will he decide to stop abandoning those who are already down and out? These people do not qualify for EI because the criteria are too restrictive, and they do not qualify for welfare because they have assets that they must first sell. They are being reduced to poverty, put out in the street, driven to suicide. There are people living out these tragedies today.

The Minister of Finance has a $12 billion surplus this year, and he will have a $21 billion surplus at the end of this fiscal, but he has done nothing to help these people out. This is not just unacceptable, it is completely revolting.

The federal government used the 1999 budget to pull a fast one on Quebec. The Minister of Finance says he is a Quebecer and holds international fora in Montreal, and naturally we are very pleased. Montreal is becoming the financial capital not only of Canada but, thanks to the initiatives taken by Mr. Landry, of North America. It is perfectly normal to recognize that and to at least hold a first meeting of G-20 members in Montreal.

He claims to be a Quebecer, but why did he take advantage of the 1999 budget to pull a fast one on Quebec by unilaterally changing the formula for the Canada social transfer? Until then, the sharing was based on a number of criteria, including population. But population was not the primary factor. The primary factor was the need for the portion of federal transfers earmarked for social assistance.

This Minister of Finance, who claims to be very understanding, to treat Quebec well, to be a good representative for our province, unilaterally decided to pull a fast one on Quebec and to amend that formula. The result is that Ontario was the big winner, following the $2 billion adjustment made to the Canada social transfer in 1999.

By using population as the primary criterion, Ontario benefits because its population is larger than that of Quebec. Ontario is the province with the largest population in Canada.

Half of the $2 billion adjustment went to Ontario. The richest province in Canada received $1 billion out of the adjustment to the Canada social transfer, to fund social assistance, higher education and health.

Since 1994, a well-oiled system has been put in place by the Minister of Finance in order to arrive, by 2004, at cumulative cuts of $32 billion in social transfers to the provinces. By 2004, Quebec will have absorbed 50% of these cuts, which represents a $16 billion shortfall.

They pulled a quick one over on it in the 1999 budget by exchanging the criterion for one based on population. Ontario won the prize. Quebec has absorbed double the amount it should have in federal government cuts.

As the Prime Minister did last week, government members from Quebec were bragging that, in 1999, Quebec received a $1 billion adjustment in equalization payments. Of course, we got $1 billion, because equalization payments are calculated mathematically rather than politically. The Liberals make political hay with it. No matter, they make political hay with everything, such as the fate of the sick and the most disadvantaged.

These people make political hay with everything and delay the right decisions until the next election campaign instead of easing things for people who have suffered for three or four years. They play petty politics.

They gave Quebec a $1 billion adjustment in equalization payments. Why? Because they did not give it enough before under the brutal calculations of the equalization formulae.

However, what they do not say is that what they gave with one hand they took away with the other. I talked of the new formula for allocating the Canada social transfer. In this, they took from Quebec what it was entitled to. There is also a $2 billion shortfall Quebec is still seeking for having harmonized the GST with the QST in 1991.

The federal Minister of Finance, who claims to be a Quebecer and to stand up for Quebec, gave $800 million to three little maritime provinces, because they harmonized their sales tax with the GST. Quebec did so in 1991 and is seeking compensation from the Minister of Finance. We did exactly the same calculations as were done for the three maritime provinces, coming up with a total of $2 billion. The Minister of Finance informed us “No, you are not entitled to it”.

We made adjustments. The Government of Quebec also collects the GST on behalf of the federal government. It is calling for $2 billion in compensation for having carried out harmonization of the QST with the GST. Quebec is asking for nothing more and nothing less than the fair treatment according the three maritime provinces, and yet it is being told it is not entitled to it.

There is also an annual shortfall of another $2 billion in federal government procurement of goods and services. We are not the ones saying so. It comes from Statistics Canada. In relation to its demographic weight, Quebec ought to have $2 billion more each year in federal government procurement of goods and services.

This adds up as follows: $6 billion in cuts to the Canada social transfer since 1994, $2 billion shortfall annually in goods and services procurement, and $2 billion in compensation for harmonization with the GST, for a total of $10 billion. Here they are boasting about making us a gift of $1 billion, while we were shortchanged to the tune of $10 billion.

That is liking having a burglar break into your house, one who might just happen to be Minister of Finance. He helps himself to $10,000 of your money. You chase him and nab him at the corner, and he gives you back $1,000. You hug him in gratitude for returning 10% of what he took. There is a limit to what a person can put up with.

In the 30 seconds remaining to me I will just raise an important point that comes up in Bill C-25, which is the trust set up for hepatitis C compensation. As announced in 1999, this bill proposes to consider the compensation received by the hepatitis C victims as tax exempt.

I take this opportunity to remind the House that those who were infected before 1986 or after 1990 are still not entitled to any compensation, even though they are victims just like the others. We must remember that, and this is a good opportunity to remind the House of it.

Moreover, those who are entitled to compensation are still waiting for their cheques because, seemingly, these cheques are in the hands of the lawyers. It might be a good idea for the government—and I will conclude with this message—not only to think about tax treatment, but also to use its money to treat those who are not entitled to compensation on the same level as the others. These people are no less affected by hepatitis than the others and they too should be compensated.

We will vote against Bill C-25 at second reading. It reflects the finance minister's lack of imagination, his total lack of compassion for the needy and his refusal to follow up on the numerous requests made by the governments of Quebec and the other provinces to restore the Canada social transfer, to review the employment insurance reform and, in the case of Quebec, the minister's refusal to follow up on a request to be compensated for having harmonized the GST and the TVQ—the federal government owes $2 billion to Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois has been asking since 1993 that Quebec be treated fairly regarding the procurement of goods and services the allocation of budgets for research and development. We are still waiting for a reply from the Minister of Finance. No reply is provided in the 1999 budget, in the 2000 budget, and even less so in the 1999 budget implementation bill, namely Bill C-5.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-25, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999.

Yesterday I attended the Business Council on National Issues' annual CEO summit in Toronto. At that summit there was an immense amount of discussion surrounding some of the issues facing not just the business community but all Canadians in the complex and hypercompetitive, globally integrated economy that we are entrenched in today.

I heard a lot of very serious and legitimate concerns about the future of our country. I was dismayed by a sense of disconnection between the people in that room, who were working hard to create greater levels of opportunity for Canadians and greater levels of prosperity for Canada, and the people here in parliament and the House of Commons.

Yesterday morning the Minister of Industry spoke to the group assembled. His speech contained some very positive messages with respect to the future competitiveness of Canada. However, in the question and answers after, he clearly disappointed those assembled by demonstrating that he lacked the vision and the leadership to provide the types of initiatives that Canada needs at this juncture to forge forward as a globally competitive country.

The minister was asked a question by Izzy Asper, the CEO of CanWest Global Communications Corp. and head of the Global Television Network, concerning the Canadian tax system. I will quote Mr. Asper.

The Canadian tax system that we're living under was last reformed 32 years ago. It is obsolete and the world it was designed to deal with no longer exists.

The (system) is a nightmare of complexity, a sea of uncertainty...The tax system is now anti-business, anti-private sector and anti-entrepreneurial.

In short, Mr. Asper was saying that our tax system is anti-growth. I would argue that is clearly not to the benefit of any Canadians, whether in the business community or outside of it.

In his response to that very serious question, the Minister of Industry said that a fundamental reform of the tax system would require an enormous amount of consensus among the taxpayers. He effectively said that it was impossible to reform the tax system because it would require a consensus.

In his statement, I think he was speaking to a larger truth, that is, to the lack of vision on the government's side in terms of these very important issues and the incrementalist, poll-driven style of this government relative to many issues, in particular, economic issues. In its tinkering, in its short term focus on next week's polls, it is ignoring the interests of Canadians well into the next century.

We heard from a number of individuals who were participating in the conference yesterday. A gentleman by the name of Tom Axworthy spoke to the group assembled. As an experienced former professor at Harvard, he indicated that in the last several years he has seen the percentage of expatriate Canadian students studying at Harvard, who returned to Canada, significantly reduced, to the extent that now virtually none of the Harvard graduates from Canada are actually returning to Canada. They are staying in the U.S.

These are very troubling and not simply anecdotal experiences. These are signs of a greater truth. The Conference Board of Canada's report on brain drain indicated that the number of Canadians leaving Canada to go to the U.S. seeking greater levels of opportunity and growth for themselves and their families has grown from 16,000 per year to over 100,000 in the last year. These types of statistics are very troubling for Canada.

We also heard yesterday from the U.S. economist Lester Thurow who, a number of years ago when the Liberals were in opposition, spoke to a Liberal policy gathering. In referring to the current Prime Minister he said that the Prime Minister's “one problem at a time” and “Canada is number one” rhetoric reflected his personal and political convictions that setting national targets, exhorting citizens to make special efforts, using his office as a bully pulpit in outlining serious challenges for citizens to consider, are all potentially fatal political traps.

While we are listed by the UN as the greatest country in the world to live, and all Canadians are quite proud of that, and while the Prime Minister pontificates about how we are the greatest country in the world, he is using that as a reason for not pursuing economically visionary policies. Whenever a politician or a government pursues policies that are visionary or forward-thinking there is risk. Clearly the previous government paid a significant price for pursuing policies that were visionary and politically dangerous.

Free trade, which is lauded now by almost all parties in the House, and certainly by the opposition Liberals who fought vociferously against it prior to 1988, was a very controversial issue in the 1988 election. In fact over half of Canadians voted against free trade. The majority of Canadians voted for parties that were opposed to free trade.

That step went far beyond the Minister of Industry's statement about tinkering and consensus. That step was one of vision and of leadership. Making the types of structural changes to the Canadian economy, which have enabled Canadians, toward the end of the 1990s and now as we have entered the 21st century, to be in a position where we can potentially take advantage of the opportunities and face the challenges of the new economy.

Similarly, the GST, against which the Liberals successfully fought in the 1993 election, is now embraced by the Liberals. In fact, the Prime Minister on foreign travels claims to have invented or implemented the GST.

The difficulty with the Minister of Industry's statement yesterday, that no steps can be taken without the consensus of Canadians, indicates that this government is so focused on following the polls that it is failing to lead Canadians. Canadians deserve better government than that. I would argue that on the GST there was a consensus. Unfortunately, it was not a consensus that was positive for my party in 1993.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

That is the best part of your speech so far.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

One of the Liberal members opposite has commended me on my oratory today. I appreciate that. It is tremendously kind.

I thank the Liberals opposite for not changing those excellent policies of the previous government because, frankly, they have been the policies that have enabled the current government to eliminate the deficit, along with the support of the Canadian taxpayers who have been pummelled under this government's leadership. It could be said that the government opposite is a government of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately, its sound ideas are seldom original and its original ideas are seldom sound.

We are speaking today to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999. This is a collection of tinkering measures that fail to address some of the significant tax reform issues challenging Canadians.

Under this government we have seen declining productivity and investment and, in fact, an exodus of not just Canadian talent, in terms of the best and brightest young people we have in Canada, but also an exodus of investment in what is sometimes called the corporate takeover of Canada. We have seen a huge loss of Canadian economic sovereignty under this government.

It is important to note that sovereignty is not about economic symbols. It is about economic performance. While the government will continually go back to symbolism and try to defend its record based on particular symbols, it is missing the basic message or mantra of the new economy which is that individuals, wherever they live in the world, are prosperous or poor based on the degree to which their governments create environments for their citizenry to participate fully in this new challenging global economy. This government is clearly failing to recognize the opportunities and challenges of this new economy.

Canadians deserve much better. Canadians deserve a government with a clearer vision, a government willing to take some risks on economic policy and forge ahead of where the polls are indicating the government should be right now and actually do some of the things that Canadians need to be done to prepare them for well into this millennium.

Based on the last three budgets, it is clear that the Liberal government is big on labels. We saw in the 1998 budget that it was the education budget and 12 months after that budget, over 12,000 Canadian graduates declared bankruptcy.

The 1999 budget was the health care budget. In the year following that budget, we still see the Canadian health care system in a shambles and health care reeling in every province in Canada, not because we have bad provincial governments but because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to defend the Canada Health Act and has not provided the type of funding necessary for the provinces to maintain the principles of the Canada Health Act.

The year 2000 budget was the tax cut budget. Before this budget, Canada had the highest personal income taxes in the G-7. After this budget Canadians face the highest personal income taxes in the G-7.

What about corporate taxes? Prior to this budget Canada had the second highest corporate taxes of the 31 countries in the OECD. After the tax relief measures of the budget are fully implemented over a five year period, Canada will have the fourth highest corporate taxes of the 31 OECD countries. That is assuming that other OECD countries will not reduce their corporate taxes, when in fact 27 of the 31 OECD countries are already planning to reduce their corporate taxes.

While the Liberals pontificate about Canada heading in the right direction with their tax policies, I remind them that a tortoise heading in the right direction on the autobahn is still roadkill. The Liberals' tortoise tax reform is a hindrance for Canada and is holding Canadians back when we should be unleashing the Canadian potential not just to compete globally, but to succeed globally in this new economy.

Under the Liberals we have seen a reduction in our personal disposable income of about 8%, during a period of time when the Americans have enjoyed an almost 10% increase in personal disposable income. I suspect that I have to remind members opposite that it is impossible, wealth being a relative thing, for Americans to have become richer while we have been getting poorer.

This is one of the reasons we are seeing the dollar drop by approximately eight cents since the election of the government in 1993. The dollar is one of the best indicators of economic performance. It is like a share value in Canada. It reflects the confidence not just of Canadians, but of investors from around the world. Every time the dollar drops, Canadians have a pay cut. It reduces the standard of living and the purchasing power of Canadians who increasingly in the globally interconnected economy can purchase what they want and need from companies and individuals almost anywhere.

Our productivity growth has been the worst in the G-7 in recent decades. There has been a secular decline in our productivity growth rate, particularly relative to the United States. Again, that needs to be addressed. Broad based visionary and courageous tax reform and reduction is only one way, but it is a very important way to address that issue.

I will speak to some specific issues in Bill C-25. We support the demutualization of life insurance companies. That is a step in the right direction. It has already been the case in the U.S. and there is a broad based level of support within the life insurance community for this. Demutualization stands to benefit a lot of policyholders. Effectively in some ways it makes them shareholders in some of these companies. There are some benefits to that.

In 1999 there was an increase in the basic personal exemption by $675 to approximately $7,100. That is a baby step in the right direction. To be taxing Canadians who are making $7,100 is purely too low a figure. Comparatively in the U.S. one does not start paying income tax until one's income reaches approximately the equivalent of $11,000 Canadian. We are supposed to be a kinder and gentler nation yet with the recent budget, we will be taxing people who earn only $8,000. The increase is a step in the right direction, but just a baby step.

Again bracket creep was not eliminated in the 1993 budget. A lot of these little tiny baby steps on tax reduction were eliminated by bracket creep in the years since then.

On the issue of the deficit surtax there was an announcement in the 1999 budget for a reduction in this tax and we supported that. It should have been done earlier.

The 5% deficit reduction surtax was not touched in the 1999 budget. In the 2000 budget there was a commitment to decrease it by 1% per year. Of course the government is reticent to reduce the 5% surtax because it is a surtax on who the government considers to be high income Canadians. It is part of the politics of envy the Liberals try to create in Canada and an attitude of anti-wealth or anti higher income which is a recipe for failure in Canada.

Canada's highest marginal tax rates are higher than all but two of our trading partners. Canadians are taxed at the highest marginal tax rate when they hit an income of $70,000 per year. In the U.S. one does not hit the top marginal tax rate threshold until $420,000 Canadian. That says to an MBA graduate or someone entering the computer industry, software industry or e-commerce industry who is starting at that pay almost immediately after university that we do not want them here, that we do not want their talent or their innovation. Unfortunately when we say that to them all their potential to build better futures for themselves and their companies and a better future for a country will benefit other companies outside of Canada. It will benefit countries other than Canada if we are not very careful.

In this legislation which has to do with the implementation of the 1999 budget there has been a bunch of tinkering, a series of baby steps that do not really address the holistic and systemic issues facing Canadians. It indicates the anemic approach by a tired government which Canadians are growing concerned about. They watch this complacent government and the near toxic levels of arrogance which emanate from the government benches. They know they are paying a significant price for a government with no vision and no courage to lead Canada bravely into the 21st century.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-25 is deemed to be adjourned.

Crimes Against Humanity Act

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved that Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin just by recalling for the House a statement that was made by Isaiah Berlin, one of the great moral philosophers of this century in a lecture that he gave about 30 years ago. He said that we must be reminded that the Nazi concentration camps of the second world war offer the most conclusive justification for the necessity of a universal moral law. He then went on to say, and I think it is a pertinent comment for this debate, that the primary duty of any politics was to avoid the extremes of human suffering.

Since the second world war there have been people in politics who have made every effort and given voice to the question of the extremism that leads to human suffering. The Nuremberg trials themselves immediately after the war and the development of the convention on human rights and the genocide convention or the tribunals that have been established for Rwanda and the Balkans have all been efforts to establish a new trend of humanitarian law that begins to set standards for that universal moral behaviour.

This movement has been an effort to develop a fundamental principle about the protection of individuals and their rights, not the protection of nation-states, not the protection of the interests of the grand powers but the fundamental protection of the security of individuals and to hold people accountable for those who commit crimes against individuals.

I am pleased to report that the adoption two years ago of the statute for the development of the International Criminal Court was perhaps one of the most substantial and forward looking steps our generation has ever taken to prepare the world for that new sense of accountability.

This was why I had the privilege, in December, of introducing Bill C-19 concerning crimes against humanity.

This bill would implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Canada and would also strengthen the legislative groundwork for the prosecution of crimes in Canada.

It is in this debate and discussion at second reading that we must bear in mind the vital reasons we need to support the International Criminal Court and why Canada has taken such a position of leadership.

We have seen time after time on our television screens, human suffering and shocking violations of people's rights throughout the world. Instead of diminishing over time, the scale of human violence has substantially increased. Perhaps the most stark, dramatic and horrendous statistic that comes to mind is that 90% of today's victims in war are civilians, women and children, the most vulnerable. They are the ones who pay the price. In fact they are often the targets.

We read in the newspapers about the trials going on in the Hague and about the deliberate planned violation of women as part of the war aims during the Bosnia war. This brings to mind the horror that takes place in this world of ours. Millions of women and children have suffered torture, rape, expulsion and extinction. They have been mutilated for no reason other than a hatred for their tribe, their religion or their ethnic background.

I recently read the book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch. The author went into a school that had been attacked by the genocidaires, the murderers, during that horrible period in 1994. He described how he walked in and saw a room full of mutilated corpses and skeletons of young children and what had happened to them. The genocidaires had arrived one morning and had asked who were the Hutu and who were the Tutsi. The Hutu kids were told to leave and the Tutsi kids were murdered. He then went on to describe how the international community ignored that peril and threat. Almost half a million people were killed for no other reason than who they were and who they belonged to.

It is so important that we begin to establish the fundamental principle of accountability. We can no longer tolerate people hiding behind the walls of national protection, the impunity that says “I am simply doing my duty” or “I am in a position of responsibility”. We can no longer accept that as being a basis for international law. That is why we are debating Bill C-19 at second reading. Establishing the International Criminal Court is one way of safeguarding the culture of accountability against the threat of impunity. That is the basic question we are here to decide.

It is also a practical imperative. The more deterrents we can provide to this kind of human violence, to this kind of attack against individual rights, the more we stop it from happening, the more it begins to provide a lesson and a warning to those who would commit crimes in the future. It begins to establish basic principles. That is why, in establishing this new culture of individual accountability, we need new tools and institutions.

The International Criminal Court represents in a sense a gift from the last century to the new century. It is the first new international institution in the UN family or community of institutions that has been established specifically to deal with the question of international crime. It will begin to hold deliberately liable those who violate victims and to hold them personally responsible for those actions. It is a huge step forward for humankind in developing this kind of institution.

It is true that we have war crimes tribunals working in Rwanda and in the Balkans but it is an ad hoc approach. It is subject to the wrangling that takes place in the security council or in other forums along the way. It sometimes leads to selective justice and is not universally applied.

The creation of a permanent, independent institution can overcome these weaknesses. It can build upon those foundations and because of its permanence it will serve as a more reliable deterrent to perpetrators of these crimes.

This is why Canadians spoke out so strongly in favour of the International Criminal Court and supported the important role played by Canada, which insisted that the court be independent and effective.

In July 1998, Canada presided over the final negotiations, during which the international community adopted the Rome Statute.

I would like to pay a personal tribute to one of our senior officials, Master Philippe Kirsch, who was the president of the Rome meetings and was instrumental, along with many other officials of our department and a great number of NGOs in the country and internationally, in providing the momentum and kind of direction that allowed us to bring this court into being.

The ICC statute now provides a permanent court to try those accused of the most serious crimes recognized by international law, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Significantly, and this was a major Canadian initiative in Rome, the statute contains new provisions responding to crimes against women and children. For the first time that is now becoming part of the new basis of international humanitarian law.

Let me deal with one of the critiques we hear sometimes from right wing commentators and others that somehow this is a threat to our sovereignty. It is absolutely not the case. The statute of the court makes very explicit and clear that the first line of defence is the domestic court system. Those countries that have a fair and impartial legal system are being asked to use that system. The international court is only a court of last resort and within it are built a whole series of safeguards on the appointment of judges and the thresholds that have to be reached before it can be triggered.

However it fills the vacuum of those failed states in which the judicial system no longer exists, is politically biased or simply cannot function to bring criminals to account. This court will only take jurisdiction where national judicial systems are either unwilling or unable to investigate these crimes.

Other safeguards are designed to ensure that the court provides a fundamental basis but gives the stimulation and the inspiration for countries themselves to ensure that they bring into law their own implementing legislation which charges their own judicial systems for the implementation of criminal acts against humanity and war crimes.

It is important to say that this has received worldwide acceptance. Some 120-odd countries have already signed the treaty. Eight have now ratified it. I want to say with some pride in the House that the statute we are debating today, the Crimes Against Humanity Act, is the first major comprehensive implementing legislation brought forward by any legislature around the world and will provide a model for all other countries to determine how it will implement the international court statute.

The act will create new offences of genocide and crimes against humanity. These changes will allow Canada to prosecute those responsible or to surrender them to the ICC. Similar provisions will be created to respect serious crimes committed outside Canada. As we know from a supreme court judgment of a few years ago there has always been an ambiguity as to the capacity of Canada to apprehend those who have committed war crimes outside this country.

These new provisions in the act will overcome problems that we have faced in the past. The legislation will strengthen Canada's ability to carry out successful prosecutions wherever and whenever they occur. In addition, new offences would also be created to protect the administration of justice of the court as well as the safety of judges, officials and witnesses.

The act will enable Canada to surrender persons sought by the International Criminal Court for genocide or war crimes. The person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the court would not be able to claim immunity from arrest or surrender.

The act will also ensure that those who possess or launder the proceeds from war crimes can be prosecuted. Money obtained from forfeited assets and the enforcement of fines will be paid into a crimes against humanity fund for the benefit of all victims of these serious war crimes.

I hope the bill we are debating today can very quickly be put into the standing committee so we can invite the full participation of all Canadians. Let us have a serious debate, because this is one of the historic steps forward this country is taking in implementing a new legal order. We must move forward so that we can affirm very clearly Canada's commitment to ensuring that the world's worst criminals do not escape justice.

This is truly a watershed in history, a breaking from the past in which victims of those crimes were so often ignored. As we proceed we can also say that with the help of many other like minded countries and many of the international civil groups that have been working on it, we are also seeking to obtain the support of those who did not originally sign on. We are beginning to broaden the consensus and develop more recruits for this international court statute.

I can say to members that the degree to which we can affirm our commitment will stand as a beacon, a signal to the rest of the world that we mean business and that we are continuing to provide that kind of leadership. Even though the International Criminal Court is not yet fully ratified, it has already established new standards to deal with the question of impunity and accountability.

Since the adoption of the ICC statute in Rome we witnessed the indictment of Pinochet and the affirmation that former heads of state do not necessarily enjoy immunity. It is a new standard that will begin to act its way through the various councils, not just in terms of the heads of government or military people but also the war lords, the heads of organizations that undertake mass murders in countries like Angola and Sierra Leone. It begins to apply accountability to all individuals.

That is really the break from the past. We are saying in terms of our human security agenda that is not a matter of just the security of the state, as important as that remains. It is also increasing the security of the individual. To do that we begin to establish this new principle of accountability and, furthermore, put in place an institution to make sure it happens.

It is fair to say there has been a groundswell of support. It is fascinating to me that beginning this week, as we go to the security council, that the Canadian mission will be debating for the first time in the council the question of transgressions against the rights of women in Afghanistan. Following that there will be a number of initiatives dealing with the protection of civilians, the use of sanctions, and the whole question of the application of security council measures dealing with displaced persons. All of a sudden, even in that implacable centre of conservatism when it comes to international change, the council is beginning to shift its point of view.

I hope that we can do our part in the House today. I hope we can maintain the strong momentum that has been developed to shift the world's perspective to what we mean by international justice and accountability. The adoption of the legislation and the ratification of the statute can affirm that Canadians are appalled by the breaking of these laws and these crimes and are committed to ensuring that justice is done.

During the course of my remarks I mentioned the book about Rwanda written by Philip Gourevitch and how he opened the book by talking about the horrible violation against young children in a school in Rwanda. At the end of the book I think he comes to an appropriate closing which may, while it is still a horrendous story, leave us with a small sense of hope.

He describes how, when he was leaving Rwanda after completing the work on his manuscript, he turned on the radio and heard that once again the same kind of horrendous crime was taking place and that the genocidaires who had escaped across the border as part of their refugee movement had come back into Rwanda and were once again undertaking these violations and crimes. Murambi, a Catholic girls school in Rwanda, had been attacked by the genocidaires the day before. They used the same practice of dividing the students into the Hutu and Tutsi. They said that the Hutu could leave and the Tutsi must stay. However, this time there was a difference. The young Hutu women in the Catholic school said they would not leave, that they would not betray their friends. They stayed behind. They too were murdered by the genocidaires.

It is an awful story but within it there is an element of hope that these courageous young women gave their lives not to betray their friends and stood in solidarity for spirit and principle. In effect they expressed what this legislation is all about. Humanity can stand up to crimes. We can stand up against violations. In the spirit of those young women in that Catholic school, I hope the House will endorse the bill.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-19 that will fulfil Canada's obligations in the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Before I go into the details of the bill, I would like to point out that this is my first speech as chief foreign affairs critic for the official opposition. I pay tribute and express appreciation to the former chief foreign affairs critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca who is now running for leader of this great party.

I also pay tribute and express appreciation to the hon. member for Red Deer, who was deputy foreign affairs critic for this party, for a job well done during his duty tenure. He did a great job. I have learned a lot and continue to learn a lot from them. I hope they will assist me when I need their help.

There are a few things I would like to mention before I go into the details of the bill. We understand that no nation stands alone in the global arena. We have to work with other countries in assisting and making sure that criminals, those monsters who have blood on their hands, are held responsible and accountable for their crimes and that justice is served. This is a very important justice issue. Criminals must be brought to accountability.

I listened with interest to the minister's speech on which I will comment in a moment. Before I do so I draw the attention of the House to the images of concentrations camps, ethnic wars and civil wars we have seen on television or have read in the newspapers. Very few Canadians have had firsthand experience. I know someone who was watching a documentary on CBC and switched if off because it was such a horrible experience. Let us imagine the circumstances and situations faced by individuals, families and nations torn apart because of those crimes, because of bloody civil wars.

We know that when crimes are committed against an individual we feel for that victim. But when crimes are committed against a mass of people, a huge number of the population, it is difficult to think about. Crime against a single person is wrong. Crime against humanity is wrong. Genocide is wrong. Ethnic war is wrong.

We must do the best we can to play Canada's role. Canada has played a significant role on the world scene in the past, showing leadership. I believe there is a need for us to continue to capture and maintain that position.

I lived in Liberia, a country in west Africa, for about eight years. Many people who are watching will know that there was a bloody civil war there in the early nineties. I lived in that country because I was a university professor, an assistant professor of management, teaching at the University of Liberia. I also had business there. I had close contact with youth who were studying at the university. I know how the people felt when that bloody civil war broke out.

I have two sons who were born there. Now they are 17 and 14 years old. I am often reminded of those families, who were poor, who were hard-working, but who somehow managed to make ends meet at the end of the day.

The civil war was based on the ethnicity of the people. Because the distribution of assets was wrong in the country, important positions in the government were given based on ethnicity and geographical regions that played a significant role. Small children, as young as eight and ten years, had AK-47s and other lethal weapons. They were killing people. They were chopping off hands and killing relatives and neighbours because they belonged to different ethnic groups.

I wonder about those little children. They were supposed to be going to school, instead of killing people with lethal weapons. When we look at pictures we can see that they were not even fully dressed. They were barefoot. I do not think they ate twice a day, but they had lethal weapons.

Where was the international community? Why could it not stop the infiltration or importation of the weapons? Those weapons were not manufactured in that country, but somehow they got the weapons to kill people. Why did they do that? Because someone was leading them. Someone was luring those children to take up weapons, take drugs and then kill people.

This was a crime against humanity. This was a serious crime. People were committing crimes not only against the children, but by using them to kill other people.

Canada should recapture its role and show leadership in the international arena.

The Canadian Alliance supports the bill in principle. We believe it is a good initiative, a step forward, but we do not agree with the contents of the bill, and I will give our reasons.

Our support is conditional. Until the conditions are met we will be unable to support the bill. Let me give some background as to why we do not support the bill in its present form.

Our Canadian negotiators on their way to Rome met with the foreign affairs committee approximately one week before their departure. Upon cross-examination the officials said in committee that they did not know what the details of the agreement might be. They did not know what it might cost. They did not think that any of the major offending countries would sign it. They did not think the Americans would sign it, our neighbours. They could not answer questions about the make-up of the code at that time. Above all, they would sign the agreement without knowing all of these things, like this weak, arrogant government has done in the past in signing the Kyoto agreement, the Rio convention, the Cairo agreement, the Beijing agreement and so on; signed without knowing the cost, the details, the signatories and so on. I cannot understand how the government could do that. The concept of signing agreements and then having parliament rubber stamp their implementation is not acceptable.

Let me highlight some of the important reasons we oppose this bill. The bill has every possibility of implementing another bureaucratic, non-functional international body. International agreements should not be signed before parliamentary debate. That is the purpose of parliament. The hon. members sitting in the House are the elected representatives of Canadians. They are representing 30 million Canadians. How can the government sign an international agreement without hearing members, without debating the issues or without giving members information about what will happen? That is how Canadian democracy should not work. We should not be part of a rubber stamp process. Hon. members have a significant role to play. They are not mute or people to be used as a rubber stamp.

The Canadian Alliance will oppose this bill because the bad countries will not sign such a treaty. Therefore, we will have liberal democracies around the world trying each other for genocide and war crimes. Without belligerent countries signing on this treaty will be meaningless.

Will this allow us to prosecute dictators in the francophonie who might visit us? Will we be able to arrest them and try them for war crimes, or will we continue to apply our double standard? The foreign minister did not answer these questions. Now he is not here to listen. He left the Chamber.

I question how effective the land mines treaty is because the offending countries have not signed. The U.S. has not signed the treaty and Canadians are still using mines to protect their troops. Land mines made in the basements of Kosovo, Angola and many other countries are as prevalent as ever. This was a PR job for the foreign minister, who desperately wants to become director general of the United Nations.

The foreign minister believes in these world governments, this concept of the United Nation; however, I do not believe that Canadians do. We should not support projects that have no cost or budget projections. An ad hoc tribunal approach would be more flexible, less expensive and would allow countries closer to the problem to participate.

Agreeing that there will not be capital punishment for those monsters who commit war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity is hardly an argument to support Bill C-19. I am sure that if there were a referendum on this issue the huge majority of Canadians would support capital punishment for those monsters who have committed crimes against humanity.

Having said that, let me go into further detail, with a little softer attitude toward the bill. What would the bill do? It would, through the court, deal with cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The bill would give Canada the domestic legislation to facilitate the prosecution of these criminals by Canadian courts, whether the alleged offences were committed outside Canada or inside Canada. The bill would give Canada the right to have first crack at the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of such cases at home. We could waive that right, if we wished, to extradite the accused to the International Criminal Court.

The bill would also affirm that Canadian law would not bar prosecution in Canada or extradition to the International Criminal Court or to any international criminal tribunal established by resolution of the security council of the United Nations.

Because our immigration laws are such that anyone can abuse them, they are like sieves, the back door is wide open and the front door is comparatively closed, anyone can sneak in.

If an individual suspected of a war crime was living in Canada, then that individual could stand trial here in Canada, if we so wished, or before the International Criminal Court. If Canada undertook an extensive investigation and the individual was found innocent of any charges, that would satisfy the requirement of the ICC.

As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Alliance is hesitant to support the bill. The Canadian Alliance favours the prosecution of individuals who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We are committed to protecting national sovereignty, which is very important and which could be at stake. Before supporting the bill we demand that such protections be assured and that the other conditions I mentioned be met.

The relationship between domestic and international law is not spelled out in Bill C-19. The proposed amendments to the bill must be adopted at the committee stage before any support could be given to the bill. If these conditions are not met, then the Canadian Alliance must oppose the bill.

Let me mention some of the positive aspects of the bill. There are many good parts to the bill. It places further emphasis on guaranteeing the interests of victims. The court will be obliged to take all appropriate measures to protect the safety, well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. The judges and prosecutors will be completely independent. The suspects and the states concerned will have the right to challenge the court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of the case during investigation or at trial.

The bill is one step toward creating an international judicial system in which any individual, regardless of position, will not be above the standards of the rule of law.

There is some criticism of the ICC that says that individual tribunals would be preferable and a superior option to establishing a permanent ICC. A tribunal would examine one specific case, render a verdict, and then disband. This could eliminate the cost of maintaining a permanent body and there would be no long term bureaucratic body in existence. However, these types of tribunals have proven to be ineffective in tracking down criminals and in having the legal authority to prosecute them.

The establishment of the international criminal court would bring legitimacy to international justice. By establishing one court for all war crime cases, much duplication is eliminated, counterbalancing the cost of the court's permanently.

As I said earlier, the bill is supposed to go to committee, where the real work should be done. It is critical that Canadian military and legal experts present testimony at the committee stage of this bill. That will definitely contribute to the quality of this bill.

If government members were listening and the Minister of Foreign Affairs was listening to the concerns of the official opposition, they will let the committee do the real job, listen to the official opposition and add some quality and substance to the bill which will be in Canadians' interests.

We want them to talk about the accountability of soldiers, officers and superiors in relation to the bill and in the Rome Statute giving rise to this legislative proposal.

We need to have on record their comments concerning the provisions of this bill which have been considered and negotiated at length by Canadian and American military experts at their own conference. Appearances by Canadian experts at committee should help to allay the concerns of some Canadians, particularly my constituents of Surrey Central, regarding certain aspects of this bill.

Since the Nuremberg trials of 1945, the international community has been working toward the creation of a permanent international criminal court. Momentum for the creation of the international criminal court was invigorated by strong support from the public, the media and non-government organizations.

After years of negotiations and an intense five week diplomatic conference with a thorough range of interests, the basis for the international criminal court was adopted in Rome on July 17, 1998. National judicial systems have failed to satisfactorily investigate or prosecute such individuals. There is a need for the measures in this bill.

I also understand, with the limited information the government has provided to opposition parties, as is usually the case, that the ICC is not retrospective. It will only study incidents that happen after the court is established. There will be no backlog, thereby allowing the court to begin immediate work on cases brought before it. This will help ensure that justice prevails quickly yet fairly.

Bill C-19 is retrospective for crimes committed outside of Canada, since we have always had domestic legislation in this domain. This legislation will be replaced by Bill C-19. The new retrospectivity of Bill C-19 is based on the status of international law at the time and place of the commission of the offence. This has always been the case in Canadian law.

The bill will allow individual governments to try war criminals within their own borders. Or, countries will have the means to transfer alleged criminals to the international criminal court to stand trial on the international stage.

No longer will heads of states have immunity against prosecution. They will be subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. Crimes such as rape, other serious sexual violence and forced prostitution may be judged as a war crime and crime against humanity. Imprisonment and fines will be administered. However, capital punishment will not be administered.

I will quickly go over the organizational component of the ICC. The international criminal court statute will come into force once 60 states have ratified it. It will be seated in the Hague, Netherlands. The 18 judges of the ICC and the prosecutor are selected on qualifications of supreme court level and must be ratified by two-thirds of states parties. Their terms are for nine years, staggered by one-third, that is, every three years six new members are appointed and six will leave. They may be removed by a similar two-thirds vote, if there is a need.

The registrar will be responsible for administration of the ICC. The rules of procedure and evidence are currently being negotiated through a series of meetings of a preparatory commission which includes delegations from signatory states and other interested states.

The details of precise meanings of terms found in the statute, evidence and court procedures, administrative structure, that is, languages, treatment of child witnesses, conditions of imprisonment, et cetera, are to be concluded in consensus agreements adjacent to the statute.

Parliament and Canadians need to have the information on these details once they are fleshed out. As I urged earlier, parliament should be given the information so that Canadians can know it is public knowledge.

The assembly of states parties to the court will ratify these rules of procedure and evidence upon the enactment of the statute after the 60th ratification comes on board. The assembly of states parties will meet once a year to provide management oversight and review the annual audit and budget in an effort to ensure financial accountability. Financial accountability is very important for international institutions to run smoothly.

The definitions of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are carefully spelled out in the Rome Statute and are based on existing international law.

I will now go back to the part about the costs. Before going to Rome, the Canadian representatives or delegates had no idea what the costs would be. At present there is no set amount to be paid by Canada, as we learned.

All member states of the ICC will pay a fee for the creation, operation and management of the ICC. The United Nations will contribute half of the initial start-up costs and will continue financially when specific cases are mandated by the Security Council to the ICC. The remaining costs will be shared equally by all states parties, no less than 60 and potentially much higher.

As of February 7, 2000, 94 countries had signed the Rome Statute. The costs will not kick in until at least 60 signatories have ratified the statutes.

After some digging, the official opposition has found that the estimated financial obligation for Canada for the ICC, from a discussion with Mora Johnston in February 2000, revealed that the total initial contribution for the first to second years of the set-up period, after 60 ratifications brings the Rome Statute into effect, would be something like $300,000 to $500,000 Canadian. That cost will be less than the cost of the fountain installed in the Prime Minister's riding, which has created neither jobs nor any justice.

The annual expected contribution once the ICC is up and running is expected to be $1 million to $2 million Canadian. Canada's annual contribution to Rwanda and Yugoslavia's war crimes tribunals in 1998-99, assessed through the United Nations, was $6.3 million Canada. We can see how the cost operates.

There are some questions relating to the ICC. The permanent international body may become unaccountable and may override the sovereignty of a nation's legal and government systems. We did not get any answer nor did we hear about this in the minister's speech.

Although the ICC is to be complementary to national courts, it will investigate and prosecute a crime when the nations with jurisdiction are unwilling to do so. Here is one example of how the ICC can overrule the sovereignty of a nation. The ICC has been structured so that the sovereignty of nations will remain primordial. It does so by requiring the enactment of domestic legislation in each ratifying state which gives that sovereign state both the judicial equipment and the right to prosecute suspected cases of the crimes domestically.

Bill C-19 is Canada's version of this legislation. We can choose to waive the sovereign right to prosecute in our own court system and send the case to the international criminal court. This right cannot be circumvented unless we are unable or unwilling to use it, that is, that there is a deliberate fraudulent attempt to shield a suspect from prosecution, or our rule of law has completely collapsed and we have no government in place.

That this assessment could ever be made in a Canadian case is agreed among Canada's negotiating team and justice department experts to be simply unthinkable. In order for the unthinkable to occur, that is, the ICC were to nullify a Canadian investigation or the prosecution of a war crimes case, the following process would have to have been followed: First, the prosecutor must decide that there is a reasonable basis to question that Canada has deliberately and fraudulently misinvestigated or misprosecuted allegations with the aim of shielding a suspected war criminal; second, the prosecutor must consult with the Canadian government regarding his suspicions and try to arrive at a negotiated resolution of the discrepancy; and third, the prosecutor must convince a pretrial chamber of the ICC that the case is valid.

This stage would require concrete evidence that the accused war criminal is guilty of the offence and that Canada used a scam process to shield the accused from prosecution.

Canada could appear in front of the chamber to plead its case at this stage and could bring the case to a fourth appeals chamber stage. If the judges of the ICC go stark mad and judge that Canada is deliberately and fraudulently shielding a war criminal, this should be obvious to the international community. In this case, Canada has recourse in the procedure to remove rogue judges by a vote of two-thirds of states parties, if they agree.

In short, the international criminal court statute and Bill C-19 provide for substantial protection of a state's sovereignty viable only in blatant cases of judicial dishonesty or incapacity.

The strict requirements to overturn a sovereign country's treatment of a case have been negotiated and approved by the sovereignty maverick, the United States, and signed by the United Kingdom and France. They are intended specifically to protect state sovereignty for well behaved states while stopping rogue states from fraudulently protecting verifiable war criminals from accountability for their actions. In a way Bill C-19 affords us more sovereignty than improvised war tribunals.

There are some other problems. The ICC could lead to judicial activism on a global scale. Global judicial rulings should not be deemed regressive. It has been argued that a uniform, fair and equal system to prosecute individuals before the ICC will eliminate any chance of a kangaroo court.

It is clear that there is very limited room for any judicial activism in Bill C-19 or the Rome statute, either in terms of expanding the mandate of the ICC which is restricted to the three crimes listed or playing with the definition of said crimes which are very strictly and identically defined in both documents.

Why not continue the common practice of establishing ad hoc tribunals as cases involving these crimes come up? The 18 judges and prosecutors remain independent of government interference, with the exception of the removal clause, the two-thirds of states parties. The appointments are for nine year terms, as I mentioned. As shown in these numbers it is less expensive than setting up and administering individual ad hoc tribunals that lack the experience and legitimacy to efficiently and effectively hold criminals accountable.

The ICC not only allows the countries most implicated in a conflict to participate in the process. It gives them the judicial equipment and the right to prosecute the war crimes in their own courts. It gives them mechanisms and international support to achieve justice.

The ICC bureaucracy would be skeletal at first since it is purely prospective and does not have a backlog. It would only be used in cases where countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute domestically. When not in use, again the bureaucracy will be skeletal.

It is a one-stop shop for war crimes prosecution with specific expertise and experience in its limited mandate. It ensures continuity and consistency of international law. It will be much more legitimate and effective in bringing war criminals to justice and setting deterrents for potential war criminals than ad hoc tribunals.

Let me mention something about our neighbours, the United States. The U.S. has not yet signed the Rome statute. The Senate is unlikely to ratify it, given its present political composition. Some may argue that this makes the court ineffective. Although the U.S. is not a signatory the Rome statute can still be applied. The need for international justice can still be carried out.

There are examples of treaties and alliances that are successful without American participation. The United States has not rejected the Rome statute yet and is presently studying the ICC within the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House. They are heavily involved in negotiations on the rules of procedure and evidence at the preparatory commission. This involvement in the process could lead to their acceptance of the court.

In conclusion, I think we should participate in negotiations on the rules of procedure and evidence before they are concluded. We should participate in deciding the definitions that are being worked on before the bill is ratified by parliament.

Parliament should participate in serious consultations with regard to those negotiations. We know that the negotiations are secret. We want some degree of input, in camera or not, into how Canadian delegates negotiate the critical rules of procedures and evidence.

These things need to happen before my constituents of Surrey Central, Canadians and the Canadian Alliance support the bill. War criminals must be held responsible and accountable for the blood on their hands.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to indicate our strong support for Bill C-19 and to commend the minister for bringing forward this historic and landmark legislation.

It is appropriate that today, April 6, we as parliamentarians should be considering legislation that deals with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Today is the sixth anniversary of the start of the Rwanda genocide, 100 days of terror which led to the murder of as many as two million people, Tutsis and moderate Hutus. They were calculatingly and unmercifully butchered in what was clearly a genocide on April 6, 1994. It is timely that we consider this important legislation at this time.

I want to note as well that an essential element of this legislation is to establish what the minister called a culture of accountability. We strongly support the notion of that culture of accountability, that those who have blood on their hands, those who are responsible for these terrible crimes, must be brought to justice.

It is with a sense of sadness that I remind the House that one of those who must be held accountable for the genocide in Rwanda remains within Canada's borders today. Mugesera Léon, who publicly called for ethnic cleansing and extermination of the Tutsi people in the period leading up to the Rwanda massacre, is still in Canada today. Mugesera Léon said in a speech that was broadcast in November 1992 nationwide on Radio Rwanda:

We will take care ourselves of the massacre of the cockroaches, the Tutsi. We demand that we make a list of all those people. What are we waiting for decimate these families? Destroy them. No matter what you do, do not let them get away.

The author of those words, which were an incitement to genocide, is in Canada today. He remains unpunished. Canada must not be a haven for people like Mugesera Léon. Canada must not just deport this individual. Surely we must extradite Mugesera Léon so that he can stand trial for his terrible crimes against humanity. My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party join with people from the Rwandan community and many others in appealing to our government to demonstrate leadership on this fundamentally important question.

I support the bill. I salute the government not just for bringing the bill forward. I commend not just our government but in particular Ambassador Philippe Kirsch who has played such an extraordinary leadership role in the international community in bringing the International Criminal Court from a dream to reality. The statute that created the court came into force on July 17, 1998, in Rome at a conference which was chaired by Ambassador Philippe Kirsch.

It has been over 50 years since the United Nations first recognized the importance of establishing an international criminal court, an international tribunal to prosecute crimes such as genocide. In a resolution of 1948 the general assembly noted that genocide had inflicted great losses on humanity and pointed out that in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge international co-operation was required. In the early 1950s the United Nations attempted to pull together a statute to create an international criminal court. It is only today, some 50 years later, that the court has finally become a reality.

Canada can be proud of the role we have played in the establishment of that court. It is not just of our government. I want to signal as well the contribution of many NGOs. The Canadian Network for an International Criminal Court included a broad cross-section of NGOs. It included many churches. It included the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. It included Amnesty International and many other Canadian NGOs.

Among those I want to pay particular tribute to today is one gentleman from the World Federalists of Canada, Fergus Watt, who played such an instrumental role in rallying support for the International Criminal Court within Canada.

This is a day to celebrate the creation of this important international tribunal, but it is also a day to reflect on what might have been and what should be when it comes to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

I have mentioned the history and we know the tragedy of Rwanda, of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of East Timor and of the crimes against humanity in Chile. Certainly many of us were saddened that Augusto Pinochet, instead of facing his accusers, the families of those who disappeared, those who were murdered in cold blood, in a court of law, has now returned to Chile where tragically he may never, ever face justice. As my colleague from Saskatoon has said, that is a shame and a tragedy. Hopefully under the International Criminal Court there will be no repetition of the failure to have a reckoning for those kinds of terrible crimes.

We know that Canada's record with respect to the prosecution of those responsible for crimes against humanity who are within our borders is a shameful one. Irving Abella has written eloquently of our history of slamming the door shut to those who were attempting to flee the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. His book was entitled None is too Many . The fact of the matter is that we have not come to grips with our responsibility to bring these war criminals to justice. Certainly the passage of time does not in any way diminish the significance of their crimes.

As I said, the legislation codifies and ratifies our adoption of the principles of the Rome statute established in the International Criminal Court. One very important element of that statute is that there are a number of provisions specifically addressing the plight of women and children in armed conflict.

The statute recognizes, for the first time, rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence as war crimes and as crimes against humanity. It also recognizes the enlistment or the use of children under 15 in armed conflicts as a war crime. Those are very important provisions. I know that Canada fought particularly hard to ensure that they were included in the legislation.

We can be proud of our role, but there are inconsistencies in our approach. Even as we support this legislation, even as the government introduces this landmark legislation, we are fighting in another international forum, the ad hoc tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the international criminal tribunal looking at war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. We are fighting its jurisdiction to look at the issue of war crimes which may have been committed by NATO in the former Yugoslavia during the very tragic events which occurred in the spring of 1999 both in Kosovo and in Serbia.

We cannot have it both ways. Our government cannot on the one hand say that there must be responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes and that it must be universal, yet when there are attempts made to ensure that those universal principles apply within the context of the situation, the war and bombings which took place in the former Yugoslavia, our government cannot say that that jurisdiction does not apply to us.

Canada is indeed one of the 10 countries that have been cited in that complaint brought by Professor Michael Mandel of Canada, among others. I believe we have to take that very seriously.

We look at some of the allegations made about the conduct of that war. A bridge was bombed by NATO in broad daylight. A nine year old child on a bicycle was murdered in cold blood, along with too many others. A train crossing a bridge was hit by NATO missiles not once but twice. The headquarters of Serbian television and radio were bombed deliberately, killing innocent technicians and makeup artists, young men and women. We have to ask ourselves if those who are responsible for these crimes must not also face their day in court. I believe that indeed they must face that reckoning.

We can also look at another context, a context of what many of us believe is effectively genocidal policies. That is the context of what is taking place in Iraq today. It is what has been taking place over the past decade under the imposition of United Nations sanctions which have resulted in the death of over 500,000 innocent children. This has been well documented by UNICEF and other international tribunals. It has been eloquently denounced by the former UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Denis Halliday, eloquently and passionately denounced by his successor, Hans von Sponeck, who has announced his resignation.

I had the privilege of meeting with Hans von Sponeck when I visited Iraq along with a delegation from a group called Objection de Conscience or Voices of Conscience. They pointed out the combined impact of the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure from bombing in the spring of 1991, the ongoing bombing which is taking place illegally by the U.S. and the United Kingdom, and the massive starvation of innocent civilians, children and others, malnutrition used as a weapon of war against innocent children.

Dr. Sheila Zurbrig of Halifax, one of the world's experts on this subject, has made it very clear that this is a breach of the most fundamental international obligations which exist. The Geneva conventions say that we cannot use malnutrition and starvation as a weapon of war, yet that is what is happening in Iraq.

I want to be very clear. This is certainly not suggesting that we should not be calling Saddam Hussein to account for his crimes against humanity. We all know of the terrible attacks on the Kurds, the gassing of Kurds in Halabja and elsewhere, but it is not acceptable that innocent Iraqi people should be victimized in this way, allegedly in order to attack Saddam Hussein.

Denis Halliday said that we are destroying an entire society. It is as terrifying and as simple as that.

We call for support for this resolution, this bill before the House today. At the same time I would appeal to our government to recognize that we should not be a part of the genocidal policies in Iraq ourselves. We should be using our position of leadership as we preside this month at the security council to call for a de-linking of military and economic sanctions, for the immediate lifting of economic sanctions, for an end to the illegal bombing in the north and the south, for the opening of a Canadian embassy in Iraq and for regional disarmament in that deeply troubled region.

It is very important that we work toward the day when there will be truly universal accountability under this International Criminal Court. It is not good enough, frankly, that the United States should say that it will not be bound by this statute, that it arrogates unto itself the power to say no, it will not be a part of this acknowledgement by the international community that there must be a tribunal that has jurisdiction over all, including the United States. It has said no to the International Criminal Court, no to the land mines convention. We appeal to the United States to join with Canada in signing and ratifying this treaty.

The reality is, as former United States under secretary of state David Newson wrote in the Christian Science Monitor , “If the U.S. will not accept its obligations to the citizens of other lands, its own citizens will be less safe abroad”. I think it is important that we recognize and understand that.

Today we call on the Government of Canada to continue its important and valuable work in seeking the ratification of this treaty by other countries as well. So far I believe seven countries have ratified this treaty. Sixty are needed before it comes into force. Let us hope that we can get those 60 before December 2000 and that we can get those ratifications without any opting out declarations.

Let us celebrate the fact that the Rome Statute that establishes the International Criminal Court did not include the death penalty. I heard with sadness my colleague from the Reform Party, whom I congratulate on his recent naming as foreign affairs spokesperson for that party, lament the fact that this treaty did not include the death penalty. Surely we have moved beyond that to the point that we recognize that the death penalty is a barbarism that should not be included in any statute and which should be abolished throughout the world. I hope we continue to take a strong position on that.

Finally, let me say that I welcome the minister's suggestion that there be a full study of the bill by the committee so that those who do have concerns about the bill can be heard. I know that the Ukrainian Canadian Congress for example has written to members of the foreign affairs committee voicing concerns about the legislation. It is important that we invite them to be heard at the committee and that their concerns be listened to.

David Matas speaking on behalf of Amnesty International has raised concerns about some elements of the legislation while strongly supporting it. There are issues such as the rights of the defendant in the statute; the question of the mental elements of crime; the importance of clear definitions of crime both inside and outside Canada; the fact that individual criminal responsibility should be entrenched in the law; and that section 3.77 of the criminal code should be kept to ensure that people with connections to crime can also be convicted, that those who are directly involved and those who are intimately connected with crimes should accept their full responsibility.

Those are our concerns. As I have said, we support the bill. I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in supporting the bill.

In closing, I want to remind the House of the words of José Ayala-Lasso, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He said that a person stands a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for killing 100,000.

That has been the truth too long on our planet. Let us hope that the adoption of the bill will be an important step forward by Canada on the road to universal jurisdiction, on the road to full responsibility and hopefully on the road to one day eliminating all crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

[Dennis Gruending, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP caucus colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for his wise and articulate remarks today. In the circles in which I circulate he is respected for the work that he does in this and other areas.

I know that he is in touch with groups widely and often holds table meetings in the mornings with different groups to talk about issues. It is on that score I would like to ask him the following question. We are often told that Canadians and many other people have turned inward as we have suffered from a recession throughout the 1990s. We are told that people are less interested in international issues and affairs than they may have been in some golden age.

I would like to know, on the basis of the discussions he has had with Canadians and with groups particularly, if he senses that there is widespread or at least a significant interest in this bill and these issues. For example, I read a very good brief about Iraq from a church group which included the Mennonite Central Committee. It would seem to me there is an interest there. Could he enlighten us about what he sees as widespread or otherwise interest by Canadians in this important issue?

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I certainly want to thank him for the role he plays in international affairs as our spokesperson on development issues. He certainly has a longstanding record in this area in working with a number of groups including, I believe, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops over the years on many of these issues.

I am very hopeful about the response of Canadians on these issues. Sometimes we hear that Canadians do not care what is going on outside our borders. The fact of the matter is more and more young people particularly are getting involved and want to make a difference.

Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking at the University of Toronto on the issue of Iraq and the impact of sanctions on Iraq. It was very heartening to see the large number of young people who were present and who wanted to get involved.

People are working in solidarity with movements, trying to promote human rights in many different parts of the world. Whether it is in Burma or Colombia, working on behalf of the Kurds or in solidarity with Tibet, and in many other parts of the world, there is a growing awareness of the importance of this. Sadly it is not reflected so much in the media, but I am heartened by the extent to which Canadians do recognize that we are not just citizens of our local communities and citizens of Canada, but we are truly also citizens of the world.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague could elaborate on sanctions as a war crime. The UN sanctions against Iraq have indeed turned into a siege whereby citizens are starved. Where do we cross the line in turning these supposedly helpful implements into in truth weapons of war, of starvation?

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a profoundly important question. I know that Canada is putting on the agenda of the security council this month the issue of the impact of sanctions. I am hopeful that perhaps arising from that study we can look at the fact that in many respects sanctions are having a devastating impact on people who are not in any way responsible for the terrible actions of those against whom they are allegedly directed. For example, the sanctions on the former Yugoslavia are hurting innocent people but in no way are diminishing the capacity of Milosevic. That is why many of us have appealed for the government to join in calling for a lifting of those sanctions.

The sanctions in Iraq are the most glaring example of that.

We have also seen the impact of the blockade on Cuba and its people and the impact of the denial of a blockade. It is an American blockade in this case. It is not an international blockade. In fact it is an illegal blockade which has been condemned by the United Nations.

We have to start recognizing that these tools are blunt tools which hurt innocent people.

I hope that the committee which is studying this bill will have an opportunity to do that. I know that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, of which I have the privilege of being a member, will also be tabling reports, both on Iraq and on Kosovo, and will be addressing these very serious issues of the impact of sanctions on innocent human beings.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in our discussions earlier today we agreed by way of co-operation among the parties to the request made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas that other members of the New Democratic Party would have an opportunity to speak when this matter again comes before the House at a later date.

Therefore, I would ask that you seek the consent of the House to see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that we see the clock as being 5.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 21 consideration of the motion.

International Organizations

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today calls on the government to convene a meeting of like-minded nations in order to develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international organizations in order to encourage them to play a more effective role in the prevention of conflict.

During the earlier debate on this motion, the hon. member spoke about the importance of strengthening the ability of international organizations to prevent conflict. He presented a number of ideas, such as creating an early warning centre at the Royal Roads Military College in Victoria, the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa, or the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal. Another idea was the formation of a diplomatic rapid reaction force.

The hon. member also spoke about the problem of war economies in conflict zones, particularly the present situation in Angola, and the need to address the problem of the destabilizing effect of the accumulation of small arms.

These ideas are laudable and they reflect Canada's concern for the affected populations. The fact is that Canada is already working actively to equip the international community with the right tools to prevent and, if necessary, manage conflict.

I would like to speak about some of the initiatives already under way, to show that a new process aimed at increasing the number of means of conflict prevention available to the international community would really not be useful at this time.

There are several early warning mechanisms already in place to give the international community notice of potential violent conflicts. Canada has supported international efforts aimed at bolstering the international community's early warning capacity. For example, Canada has contributed $500,000 to the training of UN personnel, through CIDA's peacebuilding fund.

A course on early warning and conflict prevention is given at the United Nations Staff College. UN staff involved in this field learn how to interpret available data.

We have also provided assistance to regional organizations such as the Organization of African Unity, or OAU, in order to improve its information-gathering capacity. Canada will continue to provide support to enhance the capacity of existing organizations and systems.

In order to prevent a conflict from breaking out, early warning must be followed up with early intervention. Unfortunately, the creation of additional early warning centres will not solve the problem of divergent approaches to conflict prevention. These differences sometimes make it hard to mobilize political will, and make the process of reaching a decision on where the rapid intervention will be focussed a painstaking and time consuming one.

Before determining where early intervention will take place, the states need to reach agreement on what constitutes legitimate objectives for preventive actions by neighbouring states and on the nature of such actions.

Experience has taught us that there will be no sudden improvement in the capacity to intervene in response to an early warning; instead, it will be gradually enhanced through the creation and reinforcement of international humanitarian standards.

The role played by diplomats in prevention and conflict resolution is undeniably important. Canada supports the appointment of special representatives and other envoys by the UN Secretary General, and is very pleased to see such appointments made. These representatives can play a significant role in preventing conflict and in securing peace.

In July 1998, Canada co-sponsored a high level seminar to improve the effectiveness of the secretary general's envoys. Special representatives, past and present, met to examine and develop strategic options for their role and responsibilities.

More recently, the secretary general and the security council expressed their grave concern to Indonesian authorities over the violence that broke out following the independence vote in East Timor. We will recall how closely we followed these unfortunate developments in this part of the world.

A security council mission travelled to Jakarta and Dili in September. By acting in co-operation with the secretary general, it succeeded, and I would say succeeded well, in obtaining Indonesia's agreement to the sending of a multinational force to restore peace and security in the region and to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations.

We will continue to encourage the use of special representatives and missions like the one to East Timor, and we believe this function of envoy incorporates the member's proposal to establish a rapid diplomat intervention force.

Naturally, like the hon. member, the government is concerned about the development of war economies, which feed violent conflict. We are especially concerned by the endless conflict in Angola, fed by the illicit diamond trade.

In 1993, the security council established sanctions with the aim of stopping the UNITA rebel troops from funding its military operations in Angola. The aim of these sanctions is to prevent UNITA from attaining its objectives through military means by targeting the illicit diamond trade and other sources of financial support for the UNITA war.

This means reducing deliveries of arms to UNITA and its access to petroleum products. It also means limiting the opportunities of the UNITA leaders to travel and be represented abroad.

Canada currently chairs the security council's committee responsible for implementing the sanctions against UNITA. Council members are united in their commitment to make current sanctions a more effective tool to restrict UNITA's ability to engage in war activities.

In so doing, we hope to foster the conditions necessary to resume negotiations and thus facilitate a lasting resolution of this civil war, which has been raging for 20 years, has claimed the lives of more than one million people and resulted in an even greater number of people being displaced, of course, and injured.

In addition to these energetic measures to develop public awareness, Canada also worked to strengthen the sanctions. Ambassador Fowler, who chairs the security council's Angola sanction committee, made visits to the region and to Europe to promote a stricter implementation of the sanctions.

A task force of ten was asked to recommend practical measures to improve the implementation of the sanctions and their compliance. The task force submitted its recommendations to the council on March 15, 2000.

Canada is not alone in looking for ways to strengthen the sanctions against UNITA. The European Union, the OAU and other organizations have adopted resolutions and made other public statements to promote a strict application of the sanctions.

The leading diamond mining company, De Beers, and other companies have taken measures to ensure full compliance—and I would ask the House to please listen—with the sanctions. Moreover, the international association of diamond makers promised to support the sanctions by pushing for zero tolerance for any violation of the sanctions within the industry.

I could go on and on, but I want to stress the fact that we sit on the security council—we will be chairing it—, Canada is a member of the G-8, and most G-8 members also sit on the security council, and we have great opportunities to intervene effectively to prevent conflicts.

But the best way for Canada to strengthen the international community's ability in that respect is to support existing initiatives. We intend to participate very actively. Engaging in another process at this point would not be very useful.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in support of Motion No. 30 introduced by my colleague, our former foreign affairs critic, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to move an amendment to the motion as follows:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after “should” with the following:

“continue and intensify efforts with other nations to further develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of international organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) to enable them to identify the precusors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment is in order. The question is on the amendment.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate about reforming the international organizations.

I will use my time to talk about some of the reforms that I think are important with respect to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations but also with respect to the WTO, which is an increasingly important international organization that has been left out of the member's motion.

First, with respect to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, this motion is particularly timely in the sense that in a few weeks from now there will be a meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington. I, and I am sure other members of parliament, are aware that a great many Canadians are planning to visit Washington in the same way that a great many Canadians paid a visit to Seattle at the end of November and early December. They are going to pay a visit to Washington and to the meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in order to signify their displeasure, dissatisfaction and objection to the way in which the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank now operates, in the same way as they did with the World Trade Organization.

There is a growing feeling among a great many Canadians, and for that matter thinking people and democrats all around the world, that these international organizations are not serving the global community well, that they do need to be reformed and that they need to be made more democratic and more representative. They need to be restructured in such a way that they are more sensitive to the needs of all peoples of the world and not just the multinational corporations whose ideology and whose world view tends to infuse and take over these organizations.

I am not sure if that is what the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had in mind when he was calling for the reform of these organizations but it is certainly what I have in mind when I talk about the reform of these organizations, and what a lot of other Canadians have in mind when they talk about the reform of these organizations.

When I think about the World Bank, I am reminded of the restructuring programs that were imposed on so many third world countries by the World Bank. These restructuring programs were not restructuring programs. They were a cover for the World Bank imposing a particular ideology on these third world countries. What it often meant was that these countries had to cut back on what little social services and health care they had in their countries.

I remember, going back to when the Conservatives were in power, the person who later became a Liberal Cabinet minister was the head of CIDA at that time, Mr. Massé. I remember confronting him in committee at that time with the fact this restructuring program of the World Bank and the IMF was causing the death of hundreds of thousands of children who were being cut off from basic social services in order to satisfy the ideology of the banks with respect to debt repayment.

This sort of thing continues to this very day. When push comes to shove, capital must be protected. It really does not matter as long as it is indirect. It really does not matter how many people have to die, particularly children and the powerless, in order to protect the rights of capital and the rights of people who have lent money and want their interest and want it all. They had a name for this in the Bible. They used to call it usury. It used to be condemned and thought of as something that was morally reprehensible. We now have a whole financial system that depends on it, that thrives on it.

To the extent that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have no critical perspective on this at all, they not only need to be reformed, their basic principles need to be re-thought, particularly in this year which is the year of the jubilee being celebrated by the churches, calling upon all Canadians and their governments in the year 2000 to extend significant debt relief to the poorest countries of the world so that these countries have a chance to crawl out of the hole that they are in. Oftentimes the hole has been created by governments and regimes that are long gone, holes that have been created by fluctuations and depressions in commodity prices that are long gone, but the people of these countries are indentured to this debt forever and ever because we cannot seem to break the hold of the ideology that the IMF and the World Bank represent to the world.

I only have limited time and I would not want to spend all my time on the IMF and the World Bank.

The motion also mentions the United Nations. In that context, I think we would all like to see a strengthening of the United Nations. We would all like to see it perhaps in Canada but not everyone in the world would like to see it.

One of the things that bothered me not so long ago, when I was at a NATO north Atlantic parliamentary assembly meeting, was the way in which Americans kept talking about how regrettable it was that NATO had to do all these things because the United Nations was too weak. This is coming from the same country that does not pay its dues to the United Nations. No wonder the United Nations is weak, when the most powerful country in the world will not pay its dues to the United Nations. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot lament the weakness of the United Nations and say “We are just going to have NATO do that because the UN is so weak” and, at the same time, be directly contributing to its weakness through their own refusal to pay their dues to that very organization.

That is something that I think needs to be said when we are talking about UN reform. One could make a whole speech about UN reform.

Of course when it comes to the World Trade Organization, this is an organization that also needs to be seriously reformed, if not completely abolished. We need to start from scratch with an organization that is not committed to entrenching the rights of the powerful while leaving the rights of the powerless to be dealt with another day, which is exactly what we have in the current WTO.

[André Harvey, Independent, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca on his initiative.

Organizing a meeting of like-minded organizations and nations in order to reform international organizations may seem a bit utopian. Someone famous once said that our achievements are always rooted in utopian dreams.

I encourage the Canadian Alliance member to pursue his efforts in this direction. I am sure that important initiatives often begin with initiatives that do not always seem momentous. A way must be found to reform all these international organizations.

I therefore think it important that the motion by the Canadian Alliance member be given very serious consideration. I hope that the government will pay close attention and that it will do everything possible to promote the reform of international organizations.

I also wish to pay tribute to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who is working hard on all issues having to do with intergovernmental affairs, as well as international trade. These issues are not always very obvious.

I feel that Motion M-30 is modest, but extremely important for the future of all inhabitants of this planet. It is of the utmost importance for us as Canadians. Even if we are considered a developed nation, the motion, with its ultimate goal of getting international organizations to devote a bit more of their energy to the service of humankind and all inhabitants of this earth, deserves to be treated seriously and with respect.

Although we belong to different political parties and are often ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum, I think we must congratulate the member on his initiative.

Internationally, we must consider all the criticism that has accompanied meetings of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization. When these organizations meet, there are many demonstrations. Ordinary people, people in our communities realize that globalization, which is really being pushed by private interests, does not always fully respect the citizens of the world.

Corporate interests—just think of international mergers and ongoing negotiations—are not always consistent with the best interests of our fellow citizens, far from it.

It is obvious that the countries involved in negotiations within international organizations chose those that best serve their interests. For free trade agreements, the Americans and the Canadians may turn to the World Trade Organization if they feel they have a better chance of getting something out of that organization. They may also call on the dispute settlement panel created when the free trade agreement was signed, a treaty regarding which the Conservative government played an extremely active role. The FTA promoted trade, with the result that our exports to the U.S. market increased from $90 billion to $250 billion in just a few years.

In the end, these changes did not prevent poverty from increasing world-wide. I think the hon. member's motion suggests that we look into these issues. Wealth is more and more concentrated in the hands of a corporate minority and in the hands of a minority in each of our respective countries.

These changes did not prevent poverty from becoming more prevalent here in Canada. If I raise the issue of poverty time and time again, it is because poverty, particularly among children, has increased by about 50% since 1993. I have asked the Minister of Finance to take a close look at the issue of guaranteed minimum income. There are 37 federal-provincial programs, yet the problem of poverty keeps growing.

The Quebec government is beginning to take an interest in the issue of guaranteed minimum income, which will be on the agenda at the Parti Quebecois convention, in May. A number of European countries are also taking an interest in that option. That is why, in order to halt the rise in poverty resulting from globalization and internationalization, which are inescapable, the best way of ensuring that the globalization of trade is achieved a bit more humanely is to have national measures that allow us to help those in the greatest need.

It is unbelievable that poverty has risen 50% since 1993 and that the government continues to think that small, stopgap measures will eliminate the problem. Commercially, there is an enormous amount of compensation due nationally if we are to assume our responsibilities and do everything possible to stop poverty from growing at the frightening pace it has so far.

One of the organizations that is often mentioned is the United Nations. There are many who question its existence. First, from a budgetary point of view, it has some work to do; second, when there are major conflicts, very often, the United Nations are called on thanks to the leadership exercised by one political figure.

I recall former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney—to whom I pay tribute—being instrumental in ensuring that the Gulf War be conducted under the aegis of the United Nations, thanks to his relationship with members of NATO in particular. He managed to have the UN put in charge of the operations. I think this is an important step.

It is important that international organizations be reformed. We cannot continue to soft-pedal our efforts to have all countries assume their responsibilities in connection with such things as the environment. Everybody is concerned about what is happening in that area. We cannot think that we will be able to control climate deterioration through ad hoc measures in each country. I am sure our own organizations should review their practices.

I am thinking about the Canadian International Development Agency, whose mandate it is to help the poorest countries. What we hear about it is not always nice. Perhaps we should make a greater use of NGOs. For each dollar invested in poor countries, 65 cents find their way back here one way or another. We have been told that wells have been dug, but that there is no water. This is bad management.

I think the motion brought forward by our colleague from the Canadian Alliance deserves serious consideration. I hope this simple motion will bring all parliamentarians, particularly on the government side, to greater awareness of international organizations and the need for reform that will make these organizations more effective for every human being, be it in relation to international trade, environmental issues or finding a better way of resolving armed conflicts. I think we must give that very serious consideration.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this motion, because we have a tendency to look down on private member's motions. I think we must give this motion all the consideration it deserves. I am sure that, if we want to live in a better world in the decades to come, all these organizations need to be better co-ordinated and restructured to meet real targets.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to Motion No. 130.

The 20th century was host to two of the most costly wars mankind has ever known in terms of lives lost and material resources consumed. In the aftermath of the second world war, the international community banded together to form the United Nations. One of the prime roles of the UN was to engage in the new concept of conflict prevention. By providing the international community with a forum for debate, international players could air and resolve their differences without resorting to conflict.

During the last 50 years the United Nations has largely failed as an institution which could engage in successful conflict prevention. With the start of the cold war and the nuclear arms race the international community was divided between the east and west, both supporting a number of client states which engaged in a number of small and medium size conflicts.

With the collapse of this bipolar world over a decade ago, the number of international conflicts has actually grown with the gulf war and the recent conflict in the Balkans as two conflicts in which Canada has been actively and heavily engaged.

The international community's reaction to these conflicts has been slow and focused on conflict management, post-conflict resolution and reconstruction. This has not only proved costly in material terms but has created a major burden for the armed forces of mid-size powers like Canada.

The Liberal government has spent the last seven years slashing defence spending and cutting personnel and hardware from the Canadian armed forces. Despite cutting defence spending by 23% and over 13,000 personnel since 1993, Canada has more troops abroad than at any time since the Korean war 50 years ago. Despite having a mandate to monitor and defend Canadian territory and the territories of our allies, more and more of the resources of the Canadian armed forces are being dedicated to peacekeeping.

Figures from the Department of National Defence claim that direct peacekeeping duties cost the department $1.45 billion during the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Almost $1 billion is forecast to be spent next year on peacekeeping. That is over 10% of the armed forces budget which has shrunk so small that urgent acquisitions of equipment such as the replacement for the Sea King helicopter has been postponed a decade and counting.

The cost of peacekeeping has more than doubled from the $465 million spent by DND during the 1997-98 fiscal year. The status quo has become unsustainable. With the number of conflicts around the world escalating and Canada's defence budget dwindling, the international community must finally act and move from a focus on conflict management and post-war reconstruction to one of conflict prevention. International financial institutions must play a role if we are to succeed, with the World Bank and the international monetary fund being two key examples.

On the other hand, however, soft power initiatives must be accompanied by hard power military assets because without hard power there will be little incentive for some nations to respond to purely economic levers.

This is where Canada is letting down the international community. The problem is that the idea of influencing other nations using soft power initiatives does not always work. Look how influential our Minister of Foreign Affairs was with the military junta which took over Pakistan recently.

Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs really think that Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic will really mend their ways? Both have already experienced punitive economic blockades with little effect on their inherent aggressiveness. Ironically, even the creator of the soft power concept, Joseph Nye, understood that soft power meant absolutely nothing without hard power to back it up.

As mentioned, the Liberal government has slashed defence spending by a whopping 23% from $11.28 billion to a low of just $9 billion last year.

The modest defence spending increase in this year's budget barely maintains the status quo with only $60 million in additional funding to purchase badly needed equipment. This has literally gutted the Canadian armed forces.

I believe many of my Liberal colleagues on the defence committee would agree with what I am saying here today. Both the Liberal members and the Canadian Alliance members supported the defence committee's first report to the House of Commons calling for significant increases in defence spending as a percentage of GDP over the next five years.

The finance committee has also realized the urgency of this situation and recommended a five year budget increase for national defence. The result of the massive cuts to defence spending was predictable. Personnel levels had to be cut to 60,000, far below that recommended by the special joint committee of 1994 and a dramatic drop from the 87,000 troops we had in 1987.

According to the Conference of Defence Associations which appeared before the defence committee last December, the number has even fallen below the 60,000 level to 57,000 because national defence cannot afford to replace those who have left the Canadian forces.

As we know, manpower is an essential aspect of combat capability. The army is particularly hard hit with personnel at only 65% of what is needed. The Conference of Defence Associations told the defence committee that the Canadian armed forces would be hard pressed to fulfil the Liberal government's 1994 white paper commitment to build a combat capable brigade size force. This is important because the 1994 defence white paper is the government's policy on national defence and the government cannot ensure that the commitment it made to Canadians can be enforced.

The Conference of Defence Association argued the Canadian army was really only combat capable at the company level, which is a group of about 150 troops. Here is Canada, a nation of 30 million people, only capable of fielding company size combat capable forces. We have seen how stretched our two battalions are in Kosovo and Bosnia. We have to bring home our battalion of 1,300 troops from Kosovo because we cannot effectively sustain two battalions in the region.

The army is getting so desperate that recently Colonel Howie Marsh advised the government, contrary to the government's own defence policy, to cut the army to 10,000 from the current 20,000 and make up the difference using high technology. What a ludicrous argument. The idea is unworkable.

The Conference of Defence Association stated to the defence committee that our army at 20,000 was far too small. High technology, as crucial as it is, will not make up for the role played by highly trained individuals. Soldiers on the ground are what the army needs. It is just as important as the massive deterioration and rust out of our Canadian forces equipment.

Last year the auditor general determined that equipment requirements of the Canadian forces exceeded the planned budget by $4.5 billion. With a capital budget increase of only $60 million, Canadians are wondering how DND will replace the aging Sea King helicopters and enter the revolution of military affairs, and how our armed forces with the latest technology will be able to put up any combat capability whatsoever.

In conclusion, preventing conflict before it begins must become an international priority. I congratulate my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for bringing to the House such an innovative and worthwhile international plan of action. He has my support, and I suspect he should have the support of all members of the House on this initiative.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Surrey Central. We on this side of the House look most favourably on this hon. member's amendment.

There is no doubt whatsoever that economic inequalities and crises lie behind the great majority of the conflicts taking place just about everywhere in the world at this time.

It is not mere happenstance that the Bretton Woods institutions—the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—came into being in the wake of the war.

Their founders realized in 1944 that solid economic foundations were needed if there was to be any solid peace.

The International Monetary Fund was created in order to prevent balance of payment crises by encouraging the harmonious operation of the international monetary system and world trade and supporting high levels of sustainable economic growth.

Similarly, the World Bank was given the task of reducing poverty and inequality by raising standards of living and promoting sustainable development in developing countries.

While the architects of Bretton Woods could not foresee the changes that would come about, the institutions they designed have nevertheless proven surprisingly adaptable to a changing economic environment.

These changes continue today. The recent wave of financial crises in the emerging markets is forcing the two institutions to reassess their respective policies and roles in order to reduce the risk and the impact of future crises and to intensify the fight against poverty and inequality.

Through the G-7, the G-20 and its membership in the two institutions, Canada contributes to the achievement of these objectives along with like-minded nations.

For example, the G-20, chaired by Canada's Minister of Finance, was set up in the fall of 1999 to give countries whose size or strategic importance confers on them an especially crucial role in the world economy greater voice in discussion on international financial matters.

The G-20 comprises the ministers of finance and governors of the central banks of 19 industrialized countries and emerging economies, representatives of the European Union, the central European bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and their policy committees.

The objective of the G-20 is to promote co-operation in order to achieve stable and lasting international economic growth for everyone's benefit.

The IMF has taken a number of important steps to better foresee, prevent and respond to crises of the type that have recently affected a number of emerging market countries. For example, in its surveillance activities the IMF is paying greater attention to issues such as external debt and liquidity management and the appropriateness of exchange rate regimes. The IMF has a key role to play in encouraging best practices and monitoring compliance in these areas.

The IMF is also contributing to the development of international codes and standards, particularly in the financial sector, and developing frameworks for monitoring and encouraging compliance through financial sector stability assessments and reports on the observance of standards and codes. These will help identify and address vulnerabilities in a country's financial and economic systems.

The IMF has also developed two new financing facilities to help countries and the international community respond to large scale financial crises: the supplemental reserve facility, which would be available to countries in crisis situations that could spill over to other countries, and contingent credit lines, which would be a precautionary line of defence that would be available to countries which are pursuing sound policies but are nonetheless vulnerable to contagion.

IMF programs and the sorts of adjustments they call for can only succeed if the poor and the most vulnerable in society are protected. The IMF is therefore placing a higher priority on the social aspects of adjustments.

In conjunction with the enhanced debt reduction scheme for heavily indebted poor countries and as part of its contribution to the global anti-poverty effort, the IMF replaced its concessional facility, the enhanced structural adjustment facility, with the more focused poverty reduction and growth facility. As a consequence, direct anti-poverty measures will play a central role in programs supported by the IMF, the World Bank and other lenders.

The World Bank, which has recently intensified its fight against poverty, is also helping countries to eliminate some of the root causes of war and conflict. In this respect the bank has proposed that country-specific poverty frameworks should be developed by national authorities in broad consultation with the private sector, NGOs, academics and other civil society organizations.

The key principles of the underlying framework are that poverty reduction strategies should be country-driven, oriented to achieving concrete results in terms of poverty reduction, comprehensive in looking at cross-sectoral determinants of poverty outcomes, and provide the context for action by various developing partners.

The wider involvement of stakeholders may lead to more open discussions on the causes of poverty, such as socio-economic inequalities, corruption and poor governance. It is hoped that such discussions may help bridge the differences between various groups that are divided along ethnic, religious and political grounds.

The bank also has a long history in post-conflict assistance. Indeed, it was established to support the reconstruction of Europe after World War II. Since then the bank has assisted countries all over the world in their post-conflict reconstruction efforts. More recently the bank has played a key role in co-ordinating international aid to Kosovo, Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the West Bank and Gaza.

In recent years operations in countries emerging from war have become a considerable proportion of the bank's portfolio. Excluding India and China, nearly a quarter of the International Development Association's—the bank's concessional lending facility—support is going to countries which have undergone or are emerging from conflict.

In the past much of the bank's post-conflict reconstruction work was concentrated on rebuilding physical infrastructure. However, the bank has increasingly broadened its focus to address wider needs in rebuilding social infrastructure, reconstructing institutional capacity and putting in place key economic reforms. In general, the bank's support is designated to facilitate a country's transition from conflict to peace.

The bank has also been involved in unique post-conflict elements, including de-mining, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants, and reintegration of displaced populations. For instance, the bank has supported demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants in countries such as Cambodia, Chad, Mozambique and Uganda, and reintegration of displaced populations in Azerbaijan, Liberia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. It has been involved in post-conflict community development programs in Angola, Cambodia and Rwanda, and de-mining programs in Bosnia and Croatia.

I have much more to say, but I see that my time has expired.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion submitted initially by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and amended by the member for Surrey Central. To refresh everyone's memory, I will read the amendment:

—should continue and intensify efforts with other nations to develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of international organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank and United Nations) to enable them to identify the precursors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities.

I want to reflect on the comments of the mover of the motion about the road map to conflict prevention. I will reiterate the three main points and elaborate a bit on them.

The first was to establish an early warning centre, a spot somewhere in the world where information could be gathered and analyzed and then a conclusion reached. He suggested a spot in Canada.

This would lead to the second point, the need to have a series of responses. Those responses would be integrated and involve diplomatic, economic and military initiatives.

The third point the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca raised on this road map to conflict prevention was the economic issues. The economic issues involved the IMF, the World Bank and multilateral foreign aid agreements. They would be co-ordinated in some effort so that pressure would come to bear on those individuals or groups of individuals who were placing undue abuse on their fellow countrymen.

I will go back again to the first point on the early warning centre. When we think about the need in society, this is quite an initiative. There are something like 33 conflicts raging right now in the world which fit into the category of need of some sort of analysis and response. There are 33 conflicts where human rights are being abused and violence is being meted out to individuals and groups of individuals. Torture is taking place and polarization between different ethnic groups within areas of conflict.

If a conflict is raging it would require a co-ordinated response. Certainly there have been co-ordinated responses in the past. Unfortunately sometimes they are not as rapid as they should be. Canada, in particular, could very well play a significant role in bringing some co-ordinated efforts together to deal with conflicts where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or where there is potential for hundreds of thousands of people being killed.

We do not have to reflect too far to look at areas like Ethiopia, Liberia and Sierra Leone. There is a conflict raging right now in Sudan. No one is involved but it is being monitored. I can see Canada playing a role in the diplomatic, economic and military initiatives.

I am going to touch on the military initiative. To look after a military initiative where a conflict is raging, one would need a rapid response combat capable force, not one that will take weeks and months to put into the field but one that will take a few days. A ground force would be ready to act, if necessary, but it would be combat capable. It would be capable of being in a medium intensity environment with fire power that goes beyond hand held weapons.

Canada should build its military up to that point. However we do not fall into that category at this point in time. We have some heavy armament but not nearly enough to respond quickly. It is really unfortunate that we do not have heavy lift or rapid reaction capability at this point.

The third point is economic clout, a co-ordinated effort that the IMF and the World Bank could use against groups of individuals who are bent on human rights abuses.