Debates of Oct. 5th, 2001

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest as our colleagues talked about the bill before the House today. The previous speaker, two speakers ago, talked about how this is a bill with technical amendments. It is very important that the contains many technical amendments, but it is also important that it codifies the common law.

The last speaker said, that the bill did not codify the common law. I would respectfully disagree. In fact, the legislation ensures that we as the government have the tools necessary for us to live in our society, especially since September 11.

I do not want to delay the debate. I just want to set the record straight. At this time I move:

That the question be now put.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this very important bill which affects Canadians across the country.

I want to echo the comments made by the member from the NDP that this bill was expected to be merely a housekeeping bill, a bill which did not have much significance, a few amendments here and a few amendments there.

The fact is that buried within this so-called innocuous bill are many profound changes that can have a huge impact on the country, on the powers of the RCMP and on the ability of Canada to not allow certain types of individuals, terrorists and criminals, into Canada. It behooves the Canadian public to know what is in the bill. My colleagues will try to do that over the coming weeks, but we are certainly will not give it the free passage which the government wants.

The government brought this bill forward four days ago. It gave the bill to us two and a half days ago and did not even allow the Library of Parliament to give us an analysis of it. That is not appropriate. That does not provide for adequate scrutiny of the bill.

The bill would allow a number of things, including allowing the foreign affairs minister to order the detention by officers under the Customs Act of goods imported by a diplomatic mission or consulate post of a foreign state. This is very important. We know internationally that certain consulates and embassies use their consulate bags to import and move contraband around. It is known internationally that the contraband can involve diamonds, drugs and weapons. It can also involve the illegal trafficking of endangered species, which is worth billions of dollars. This illegal trafficking is responsible for the decimation of thousands of species around the world, many of which have become extinct.

The bill also deals with a clause involving the RCMP's primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conferences that may occur. Clearly we do not have a problem with that.

I want to bring forward an issue that the NDP have been harping on for a long time, which I find quite offensive. NDP members keep on criticizing the RCMP about its actions at international meetings. It is true that there has to be some analysis, as the Hughes report mentioned, about certain activities. However, for heaven's sake, when individuals who protest are willing to advocate violence, or assault the police, or teardown banners or throw molotov cocktails at the police, the police have a responsibility to protect those who are behind them as well as protect themselves. It is totally irresponsible for certain parties and certain groups to expect members of the RCMP to stand back while certain individuals impart violence against others. It is the responsibility of the RCMP to protect individuals who come to Canada and to protect those who protest peacefully.

We do need to investigate those incidents in which peaceful protesters were somehow hurt. We should also investigate the incidents where banners were put up, but were then torn down and where people were apprehended and taken into custody or thrown in jail before anything actually happened. That violates our basic tenets of freedom of speech which cannot be allowed.

However we cannot keep on using the RCMP as a punching bag for certain political interests that may exist, particularly those who violently oppose anti-globalization efforts.

The bill also lists treaties, conventions and agreements that entitle foreign representatives to immunities and privileges. It was brought forward at some of the meetings here that some foreign leaders, who are thugs, or criminals, or who have grossly abused citizens in their countries, are allowed to come to Canada to attend international meetings.

There certainly is an argument to say that if we do not sit down at the table and discuss matters that may be very difficult and painful, then a resolution cannot be found. Some people we talk to are individuals who, by most definitions, would be considered murderous or thugs at the very least.

We can use a tool to work toward peace. Perhaps the quid pro quo for international despots to arrive at a table and be welcomed as a member of the international community would be that they show good will within their own countries and stop abusing and violating the basic rights of their people.

The international community could apply pressure on groups and leaders in countries from Sierra Leone to Liberia, Angola, the Congo, Sudan and others by using the lever that they genuinely put forth an effort to deal with the significant human rights crises and wars in their country or they would not be allowed to attend international meetings in Canada or abroad. This lever ought to be used.

The problem we have with international treaties is that while they have nice words, they are toothless. We have to put some teeth in international treaties like the Geneva convention, or the rights of the child or the convention on nuclear weapons.

From the United Nations, to the IMF, to the World Bank, many agreements are made, they sound nice on paper and in a perfect world they would make a lot of sense. However many of these treaties are violated, yet there are no penalties, no implications nor ramifications for those who choose to violate them.

I bring attention to an issue that the government has been involved with for a long time and that is the issue of the wars in West Africa. In Liberia, Charles Taylor the president, has for a long time played friend and supporter of a man by the name of Foday Sankoh, the head of the RUF a group of rebels who are committing atrocities in Sierra Leone. They go into villages and chop off the arms or legs of children, women and men, not with the intent to kill them but to terrorize them.

The international community has until very recently turned a blind eye. Only recently have we applied the tools and levers against Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh to do something. The implications of failure, in this case, is that tens of thousands of innocent people have had one or more limbs amputated with hatchets and have been left to die. That is beyond comprehension.

This conflict is flowing into Guinea as we speak. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands more refugees and the destruction of entire sectors of this area.

Why I bring this up in relation to the bill is that Canada can indeed take a leadership role by applying pressures, using levers, and putting teeth in the international agreements which exist today. The argument to support it is not merely the obvious humanitarian argument that it is wrong to mutilate innocent civilians, or commit gang rape, or murder innocent civilians on the street or purge the economic resources of a country without sharing it with the civilians.

Perhaps the self-centred argument that should be put forth to the international community is that if it does not deal with these despots now then we will pay the price later on.

The costs of post-conflict reconstruction are massive. Whether we talk about the former Yugoslavia, West Africa, the Congo or Rwanda, the costs are in the billions of dollars. When the precursors to conflict were staring us in the face, as they have been for years, perhaps we should have got involved. The argument could be that if we had spent a bit of money, if we had put forward a bit of effort and if we had spent a bit of time and attention to deal with these precursors to conflict, economically we would not have had to deal with the disasters that followed.

We cannot talk about the penalty we pay in human terms. That far greater penalty is borne by the civilians in the some 50 countries around the world where bloody conflicts are occurring today and to which we in the international community have by and large turned a blind eye. We need to get involved. We need to apply levers internationally. There is an opportunity to do so in the international agreements referred to in the bill, in treaties and in the meetings we sometimes host.

Next year we will be hosting the G-8 summit. It is rumoured that the summit in part will deal with Africa. I hope it will also deal with the issue of terrorism. There is a grand opportunity for us as a nation to put some constructive solutions on the table. There is an alignment of the stars. Recently, led by South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, a millennium plan for Africa has been put forth. It deals with such issues as economic development, conflict prevention, resource management, political changes, democracy and human rights. Rather than looking at the past, it deals with some pragmatic solutions that can be done now and in the future.

There is an opportunity for Canada to link up with the some 15 leadership countries on that secretariat dealing with the millennium project and merge the G-8 summit leaders with the millennium project in Africa so that there is some commonality in the actions they pursue. Next year in Kananaskis, there is a great opportunity for Canada to take a leadership role with the G-8 nations. Those constructive solutions could be put forward with the blessing and the co-operation of the members supporting the millennium project in Africa, most notably the South Africans. There would be an enormous possibility for pursuing peace and security.

The bill also deals with protecting individuals who have committed crimes in Canada, such as the tragic murder of a woman by a drunk driver, a Russian employee at the embassy. Canada has faced problems in dealing with that because of today's laws.

Motion No. 373, placed on the notice paper on June 5, deals with just that. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade should: (a) release the names of all foreign nationals and diplomats employed in Canada in the service of their country who are charged with an indictable offence under the Criminal Code; and (b) urge the sending states of said diplomats either to recall their respective foreign officers, allow them to proceed through the Canadian judicial system, or allow their diplomats to be subject to expulsion from Canada as provided by the Vienna Convention of 1961.

The motion would enable Canada to deal with individuals who have indeed committed crimes here in Canada, rather than allowing them to flee to their countries of origin.

There is another thing that may be of help to foreign service officers here and indeed to our foreign services officers abroad. Once they come to Canada, their families cannot work. It is a problem. Similarly, the families of our foreign service officers cannot work when they go abroad. It would be useful to have provisions in the bill that would allow the family members of individuals who are employed by foreign embassies in Canada to work in our country. The quid pro quo would be that the family members of our foreign service personnel working in our embassies abroad could work in those countries. That would be beneficial to them and would provide a great deal of security for the individuals and their families.

The bill also deals with a number of immigration issues. My staff in Victoria and the staff of every member in the House have been plagued by problems with respect to the immigration department. The bill could have dealt with that.

For example, the visa officer is in Gambia for the hearing process once every six months. The office in Gambia deals with a lot of refugees from the bloody conflicts in Sierra Leone , Liberia, Guinea and others. If that foreign service officer comes down with the flu, that officer may not get there for a year. People who apply for refugee status in Gambia can only get hearings every six months and sometimes it takes a year. Bear in mind that this is only one step in the emigration process.

That office in particular needs to be looked at. There are other problems. People who go to that office say that the individuals who work there do not really care. When informed that gangs of people were shooting refugees in Sierra Leone on sight, they said there was no danger. Imagine. The international community knows that people have been shot, murdered and chopped up in Sierra Leone, yet our office in Gambia said that there was no danger. When a boatload of refugees was sent back from Sierra Leone, the office in Gambia denied that it ever happened. Either that department is overwhelmed or some significant structural problems exist there.

There are serious concerns in the embassies in India and the Philippines. I do not know if those concerns have been substantiated but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to look at this issue. Visas are potentially being sold and there are suggestions that people are being bribed.

Not Canadians, but nationals working in our embassies in the Philippines and India allegedly have been selling visas and access to the immigration system in Canada. That is not appropriate. We have repeatedly brought this to the attention of the minister yet we have had no significant response from her to date. Given the number of people who are coming through India and the Philippines it would certainly behoove her to investigate what is going on at those two embassies.

The filing fees and landing right fees are prohibitive for a number of individuals. There has also been little flexibility on the part of the departments there and pettiness has been shown in terms of the documentation required.

We are very disappointed that the government has not taken the bull by the horns. It has not demonstrated to the House the importance of the bill and the critical issues contained within it. We feel the bill is quite sneaky.

The bill should have dealt with reforms to the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations. There were opportunities in the bill to deal with some conditionality arrangements. They ought to be made but they do not exist.

Conditionality is critically important within the context of how we disburse our taxpayers' funds through these organizations. The World Bank is primarily tasked with aid and development. The International Monetary Fund deals with the security of international markets. The United Nations deals with a whole collection of issues.

The bill could have made suggestions on how our members internationally could reform these systems. It could have enabled the UN, World Bank and the IMF to communicate with each other more effectively. Canadians and the international community would be absolutely appalled to learn that those organizations rarely speak to each other. That they rarely speak to each other now is actually headway because they hardly spoke to each other before. That is bizarre given that all three organizations are supposed to be working in concert on a number of critical international security issues.

There are a number of opportunities in the bill. The Canadian Alliance will try to improve the bill by offering constructive suggestions and solutions to deal with the issues within it. I therefore move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substitute the following therefor: “Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sure the hon. member was here earlier when there was a motion moved that the question be now put. Therefore the member's amendment is not receivable by the Chair.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On that question I would like to point out to the Chair that the Liberal member who moved the previous motion made reference to Marleau and Montpetit at page 556 where it states “the previous question is at best an unpredictable method of curtailing debate”. I find that unacceptable. This is the 72nd time that the government has moved a motion to curtail debate in the House. That should be ruled out of order and it should not be acceptable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The previous motion was in order.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, in light of your ruling, I guess the only way for me to express my outrage of the actions of the Liberal government is to ask you to call quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

We will call quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

We have quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we are taking advantage of expressing our outrage at procedures in the House, perhaps you will allow me to express my outrage that the member for Athabasca, when he called for quorum, then left the House himself, thereby delaying debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. I know it is Friday afternoon and everyone wants to go home, but we will resume debate and we will not name members who are not in the House, please.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought that there might be some opportunity for questions and comments on my speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I thank the hon. member. We will go back to questions and comments before we resume debate.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, since the speaker from the Alliance had taken advantage of expressing outrage, I thought perhaps at the beginning of my questions and comments I could allow my outrage to be expressed as well. That is, I think, in order, not that I would mention any members.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful speech. It is indicative of the great knowledge of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca and his interest in international affairs. We really appreciate his comments in the House.

I particularly appreciated the fact that he pointed out that the bill is largely a housekeeping measure and that when it comes to the police powers which he referred to in the bill, he did point out that in fact if we are to have coherent and excellent international co-operation and international meetings in our country, the police must be able to have the proper powers to be able to manage them, respectful as they are of the rights of Canadian citizens to protest, to express their views.

If we think back to the most recent summit we held in Canada, the summit in Quebec City, we would say that our police, at all levels, behaved with extraordinary coherence. They behaved extremely well in making sure that the rights of everyone were respected in very difficult and trying circumstances.

The reason I mention this is that I was in the House when the member for Surrey Central, the lead off speaker from the member's party, spoke about the bill. If I understood the member for Surrey Central, he was very critical of those provisions. He said he did not understand why those provisions would be there. He did not understand the reasonableness that was contained in the bill. He sounded more like the member for Burnaby--Douglas, who compared the bill to something like the War Measures Act.

I am trying to understand from the hon. member where his party is coming from. Is it supporting the police and the need of the Canadian government to have important meetings in this country and to enable our police authorities to manage those meetings or is it criticizing the provisions of the bill which would enable the police to do that?

Perhaps he might also wish to comment on his last statement, that he felt the bill should be broader in scope and deal with things like conditionality on IMF loans and other things. I presume the hon. member was just using this as an occasion to talk about a favourite hobbyhorse of his. I would not have thought that he normally would think IMF conditionality would be appropriately put in a bill that deals with diplomatic immunities and other rather more mundane matters.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Rosedale, the head of the foreign affairs committee. We congratulate him on his reappointment to that post. It is well deserved.

I have to say that our party's deep concern is that the bill was labelled, as the minister said, as merely a housekeeping bill. While as a party we have been strong supporters of the RCMP, and indeed have backed them up when others have tried to criticize them in the face of doing a very difficult job, our concern is that when we start giving extra powers to the RCMP we do not believe this is merely a housekeeping issue.

This issue deserves a complete and public debate and public knowledge. Only by doing that will we be able to have the buy-in on the part of the public, the buy-in on the part of the House and the full knowledge of the public as to what powers we are giving.

I know the member would abhor the belief that in any way, shape or form we would want to turn Canada into a police state. No one wants that. However in certain quarters there are those concerns, particularly among the anti-globalization crowds he referred to.

Our responsibility is to make sure that those people, and indeed all Canadians, are well aware, in a transparent fashion, of the kinds of powers that this bill would represent within the statutes of our country, and we will not simply say that this is some housekeeping bill that we will slide in through the back door. That is the problem our party has with it. We want to make sure that there is a transparent and public debate so that all Canadians will know what is in the bill.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to turn to one of the themes that my hon. colleague dwelt upon which falls within his own area of considerable expertise and experience. He talked about the human rights situation in other countries, particularly Africa. My hon. colleague has visited Africa and worked there as a medical doctor on something like 17, 18 or 19 different occasions over the past several decades. He has developed an extraordinary knowledge of the situation in Africa in regard to the economic situation and the human rights situation and has a very subtle understanding in some cases.

I have a question for him that breaks down into several parts. First, in dealing with how we could respond to the situation in Africa and other parts of the world where we see terrorism of domestic populations taking place, I wonder what kinds of sanctions or penalties could actually effectively be imposed and would actually work.

In asking that I would like to extend it out a bit. As an historian I tend to look at what has been done in the past and what has worked and what has not. What has my hon. colleague seen that has worked effectively in other parts of the world? Drawing upon that, which of these possible sanctions could actually be advocated effectively by Canada for these kinds of situations? Of course there are some actions that perhaps we cannot advocate for one reason or another. Looking at countries in situations similar to our own, such as the situations of the Americans, the Australians, the Swedes, the British and so on, what has been advocated by those countries for encouraging a reduction in this kind of abuse of human rights in countries such as Africa and elsewhere?

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, who has a Ph.D. in history, so I would never want to joust with him on this because I would lose every time. He has extensive knowledge in this area.

Basically what his question refers to is what we are to do in the face of domestic terrorism. What do we do in regard to a despot who is willing to abuse his or her citizens in the most egregious way?

I think we could divide it into two responses, military and non-military. Both would require a multilateral, multifactoral approach. In the non-military response, I think we could use our international organizations through the IMF and World Bank. We can use economic levers as a carrot or as a stick for those leaders who want to abuse their people. That can easily be done through IMF tranches and World Bank help.

As a country we can also apply our help in international aid in a diplomatic carrot or stick approach. Also, with respect to diplomatic recognition and bilateral involvement, we could make them conditional on a country's willingness to support the basic tenets of human rights.

We also need to deal with communication. As we have seen in Pakistan and Afghanistan and indeed in certain areas of the Middle East, how we actually stimulate people to take up arms against another group is to feed them a steady diet of violent propaganda against that group. We in the international community ignore this when communication is used not as a lever of peace but as a tool to stimulate one group to fight against another group, but we can apply other tools. The UN has ways to do that through shortwave radio and other tools whereby we could institute positive propaganda, positive information, to build bridges among disparate groups and to support moderates.

Last, on the military option I firmly believe a rapid reaction force should be developed with the command and control structure that is already in place. In my view we also need an international arms registry that deals just with the bulk sales of automatic weapons. If we had an international agreement that would enable us to track the bulk sales of automatic weapons it would go a long way to making this world a safer place.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Carleton Lanark.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I might just bring to your attention the fact that a frequently made error in the House is assuming that the name of my riding is in alphabetical order. In fact it is in reverse alphabetical order. It happens all the time. People frequently misspell Carleton as well. It is an ongoing struggle but we make do as best we can.

I want to dwell on the civil rights aspect of the legislation before the House. It has been referred to by members on the government side as a piece of housekeeping legislation, which is one of those phrases that makes my ears perk up. My hackles rise a bit when I hear that phrase being used, in much the same way that one's nerves get unsettled when there is a knock on the door and someone announces “I am from the government and I am here to help”.

It is too easy to deal with civil rights issues and the reduction in civil rights by means of slicing off a little at a time and saying that it is just housekeeping, that it is just a little right here, a little right there. When we look at the whole question of civil rights and legal rights, the whole system of protection we have built up is a series of very small, very careful protections against those little salami slices that can be cut away. That is why when we read a bill of rights or our own charter of rights, we find that the protections for civil liberties tend to be very much in the nature of protections against a whole range and series of individual potential abuses as opposed to a broad umbrella statement of the rights that ought to exist.

For example, it is not enough to talk about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or the right to a fair trial. One has to go on and say, for example with regard to the right to a fair trial, that one has a right to habeas corpus, that one has a right not to be tried twice for the same offence, and a whole series of other similar protections, the right to counsel, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Also, within that right against unreasonable search and seizure are certain sub-rights to prevent against warrantless searches. When warrants are issued, any evidence collected can only be evidence that relates to the terms of the warrant. For example, if the police come into a person's house because they think that person is guilty of crime A and they find evidence that suggests that in fact the person is guilty of offence B , that evidence cannot be used in that prosecution.

This kind of ad hoc protection against ad hoc abuses is absolutely vital when we see ad hoc reductions in these rights, particularly those which are not clearly and specifically spelled out in our charter. We have reason to want to take very special care to make sure that we are not seeing the beginning of this process of slicing off those little salami slices of freedom. Just taking away those little bits of freedom might result in that great mass of freedoms, which makes us such a beacon to the world, being lost. That is the kind of thing we worry about.

Today we are dealing with a very specific right. This is the right to freedom of assembly to register one's protest. This is a right that has existed in our society and in our ancestors' societies for centuries. I am thinking particularly of England.

There was a time when Britain's parliament was far from being the model that it is today. For example, at one time women could not vote, working men could not vote, men who did not hold property could not vote, and the franchise was exercised only by a tiny fraction, less than 10% of the population. Also, the system of representation in the boroughs was extraordinarily corrupt. There were some boroughs known as the rotten boroughs in which there could be as few as a dozen people casting ballots to elect a member of parliament. Other boroughs were of enormous size and as a result experienced a great deal of underrepresentation

All kinds of theories were developed on how to deal with this. In the end, the right of protest on the street, of going out and demonstrating was practised. Sometimes there was a little bit of alcohol consumed and these things could evolve into riots, but that was understood and accepted.

That actually was the framework within which we in this country were able to develop a greater degree of freedom. This applies to the British and the Americans as well. That was absolutely critical. It would be a great shame to see that lost or reduced at all.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Lanark--Carleton will have another five minutes when we resume debate on the bill.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (Public Transportation Costs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Income Tax Act

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to deal with the consideration of the merits of private member's bill, Bill C-209.

There is no question that encouraging the use of public transit is a laudable goal. As a matter of public policy this is a goal that is obviously consistent with the government's plan. Every time we remove a private automobile from our roadways, there is a direct effect in the reduction of greenhouse gases and that is a relationship that all of us can understand and appreciate. The government recognizes the importance of reducing greenhouse gases, but in doing so we must remember that the tax system is only one of the possible methods and mechanisms we can use in order to help us reach that goal.

First and foremost, governments at all levels must work together to be effective in this challenge. Second, I submit that we should examine the legislation we have before us today in light of the other options that are available to us and also look at where we could most effectively utilize the money that this proposal might cost the public purse.

It has been estimated that this proposal, if enacted, would in fact cost the public purse approximately $100 million annually. For $100 million annually, the question is, do we believe that this would accomplish the goal and would there be other expenses that might be incurred in its implementation?

Clearly those who already take public transit do not need a tax deduction to encourage them to use this service, so why, as the bill advocates, should we spend money from the treasury to provide a subsidy to those existing users? It might be beneficial to those current riders, I suppose, if they had sufficient income to be taxable, but the deduction from taxable income is not helpful at all to those who do not have a net taxable income.

Clearly this part of the bill is a discriminatory measure and would take away from the benefit a person of lower income might have received. Surely this was not the intent of the drafter of the bill, but it certainly would be the ultimate effect as it is drafted. Whether they were patrons of the transit system or whether they would decide to begin using public transit, surely a section of this nature is truly inappropriate. The bill would not legislate any sort of direct payment to the person who uses the public transit system but in fact would legislate a deduction from net taxable income. That is a very important distinction to make in relation to the bill as it appears before the House.

As I look at the bill my initial thoughts are that, first, the tax system credits proposed would not be equally applicable to all riders because of our graduated tax system. Second, if one is not taxable at all, obviously there would be no financial benefit or incentive under the bill. Third, if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing ridership, why should we provide any financial support to those who already take the transit system? Fourth, this proposal would not appropriately target the group that we wish to encourage to take the public transit system, that is, those who currently simply do not use that system.

When we reflect on what we should consider, other alternatives ought to be taken into consideration. Some of the alternatives we should be looking at, I would suggest, are the infrastructure programs that are used for transit capital improvements, for direct capital investment and for adding to operating grants. These are effective ways of keeping down the cost of public transportation and also of broadening the base of support through the extra moneys that would be provided by capital infusion. We want to induce more people to use the public transit system and ultimately reduce greenhouse gases.

I would submit that public expenditures that are directed at creating the least expensive, cleanest, most well maintained, modern and efficient means of public transit would be a better and more direct method of achieving the goal of getting more riders to leave their cars at home.

Another problem with the bill is the practical application of the accountability section as drafted, subclause 118.96(3), which states:

The individual shall provide supporting vouchers indicating the amounts paid by the individual for the use of a public transportation system.

With respect to the bill itself, the word shall used in subclause 118.96(3) is a mandatory word which requires one to provide the supporting vouchers or receipts in order to deduct from the net taxable income this public transportation expenditure.

Let us think about what this really does. What does it really create? Not only does it create a new administrative problem for the traveller in having to obtain and maintain the receipts, but there is also an expense created for the travel provider on every trip taken by the taxpayer.

This is not to mention the fact that ultimately CCRA has to receive and store all of these vouchers, which conceivably could be in the hundreds per taxpayer, which again could be something significant.

The cost of producing the vouchers by the travel provider and the cost to receive and store these vouchers by CCRA would not be, I suggest, a positive use of government resources, again taking into consideration that the primary purpose of the bill is ultimately to reduce greenhouse gases.

In the bill I think what we are looking is possibly the creation of a very expensive administrative system, not only for the federal government but for all levels of government, which in effect really are part and parcel of the whole idea of public transit. That would include the provinces as well as the municipalities.

The government is committed to reducing greenhouse gases and clearly excellent public transit is one important part of that policy. The government is committed to the important principles of sustainable development across a wide spectrum of government activities. That means clear goals in relation to the environment. The federal government has required all of its departments to prepare sustainable development strategies for tabling in the House. As well, every federal budget since 1994 has included measures that will help achieve a better integration of the economy and the environment.

In budget 2000 and in budget update 2000, $1.4 billion was allocated toward key environmental challenges. One of those challenges of course is climate change. A green municipal investment fund is a part of those initiatives and is there to provide loans in support of municipal projects in such areas as urban transit.

As part of reducing greenhouse gases within the scope of mass transit, our government is also leading by example. The Alternative Fuels Act of 1995 requires that three-quarters of the federal government fleet, which includes those green buses we see travelling up and down the Hill, if vehicles meet the minimum feasibility requirements, will use alternative fuels. Clearly this is a positive step in reducing greenhouse gases.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this important issue to our attention, but as I have articulated there are better ways to use public moneys in order to achieve the goal of minimizing greenhouse gases and better serve the environment. The tax deductibility provided in Bill C-209 does not meet the tests required for an efficient, effective and wise use of public funds. Therefore I am not in support of Bill C-209.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-209, introduced by the hon. member for Jonquière. I cannot overemphasize how well advised she was in introducing this bill in the House.

A few moments ago, I was listening to the comments of the Liberal member. I should point out that this bill is in response to a motion agreed to by this House in 1999, concerning a tax exemption for using public transportation. That motion was presented by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Nelson Riis. The motion was agreed to, but nothing was ever done about it.

We have to remember the decisions made by this House before dismissing out of hand a legislative proposal by a parliamentarian based on an earlier decisions of the House of Commons.

The summary of the bill states its objective very well:

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to allow an individual to deduct certain public transportation costs from the amount of tax payable.

This is of course a bill that includes many benefits and positive elements. In the next few minutes, I will explain the various positive elements that I see in this legislation.

First, let us look at the economic activity. It is all the more important to talk about it, since all the indicators seem to point to a rather significant downturn in our economy. Consequently, we have to see what we can do to stimulate the economy.

This bill would provide a tax incentive to individuals who use public transportation and thus reduce the number of vehicles on our roads. This would, in turn, greatly improve the movement of goods and people in and around major urban centres. Since our economy is increasingly based on the just in time delivery principle, it is becoming more and more important that vehicles move as freely as possible, particularly those that transport goods, so as to allow businesses to meet their obligations in this respect.

I think it is important to point out that one 40-foot bus on the road eliminates 40 to 50 cars from that same road. Multiplying the number of 40-foot buses. one can see the effect that can have on car traffic. In Montreal, for instance, if people all took their own cars, the average length of a trip would be tripled, to one and one-half hours. That is pretty significant. The more emphasis is placed on public transit, the more likely there is to be a drop in the number of vehicles on our roads.

Why would this incentive have that effect? As I have said, it would be, for people who need to travel, an incentive to use public transportation. This would raise the revenues of public transportation companies and could have the spinoff effect of improving service, frequency and routes, thus improving ridership still further.

There are also numerous advantages relating to the environment and health. Our Liberal colleague has just referred to the Kyoto protocol, which the Canadian government has signed, committing it to a 6% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010-2012.

This is wonderful in principle. It is entirely laudable. However, we are waiting for the government to actually follow up on this commitment.

Contrary to what might have been expected, the government has for some time now taken a number of decisions which struck us as illogical, counterproductive and even harmful, given the stated purpose. One obvious example is the fact that the government, while now racking up significant budget surpluses, has deliberately decided to reduce its annual funding of $7.2 million to the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion. The centre's activities were part of a vast program of international research into nuclear fusion, which will eventually enable us to develop a clean, abundant and safe form of energy that is respectful of the environment.

In its great wisdom, when it decided to sign and initial the Kyoto protocol, the Canadian government simultaneously decided to end nuclear fusion research in Canada.

As it perhaps now realizes, if it had not already been secretly planning this, it is now using taxpayer money to promote the Iter project, which would be located in Ontario. The purpose of the Iter project is to construct a nuclear fusion megareactor. Expected to cost in the billions of dollars, this project comes after the nuclear fusion reactor in Varennes in my riding was shut down.

We have also looked at other decisions and other avenues the federal government has in mind in order to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. It is apparent that the government is trying, or thinking of trying, to shift most of the work onto the shoulders of the private sector, of industry. A look needs to be taken at the legislation in effect in the various provinces. I am thinking of Quebec, where environmental legislation is very tough and where industry has already made considerable efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are being asked for 6% more, while the federal government is making little or no effort.

We should be able to expect the federal government to subsidize public transportation, but the federal government is not contributing a penny. This is all the more astonishing when we hear that the U.S. government is investing $41 billion over six years in public transportation. The U.S. government, which is the outcast of the international community because it refuses to implement the Kyoto protocol, because it is going back to thermal power plants and the list goes on, is investing $41 billion over six years in public transportation.

Yet it is very clear that public transit reduces the number of vehicles on the road, vehicles that are to a large extent the source of greenhouse gas emissions.

I have a few statistics supplied by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, which reveal the scope of the problem. A vehicle emits some four tonnes of pollutants annually, nearly four times the per passenger amount emitted by a bus. One bus permits a saving of 70,000 litres of gasoline and nine tonnes of atmospheric pollutants every year. These figures send a clear message.

In health terms and my colleague from Jonquière pointed this out in her speech, some 16,000 Canadians die each year as the result of high levels of urban pollution. This is not to be taken lightly. The number of children hospitalized for problems related to asthma increased by 23% between 1980 and 1990. In terms of health care costs alone, the government would likely save as much if not more than the fiscal spending this measure proposed by my colleague from Jonquière would entail. I would like to add that this measure would also be fairer.

We have seen recently that the number of Canadians earning over $250,000 and not paying a cent of income tax had increased--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, death, taxes and traffic congestion are three things that we can be certain of in life and in the brilliance of Bill C-209 it deals with all three of them.

I congratulate the hon. member for Jonquière on this good idea.

The bill is very good and provides guidance and direction to the government where it has failed in dealing with more innovative ways in which we can reduce our greenhouse gases and dependence on fossil fuels. The bill would allow tax reductions for users of public transportation services in Canada.

There is a cost for our failure to deal with alternative fuels as we have not looked at ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Some 16,000 Canadians die prematurely every year from poor air quality. The increase in asthma and other pulmonary related disorders among children has increased by a whopping 23% between 1980 and 1990. This has a huge cost upon our health care system.

Health care costs resulting from automobile use alone were reportedly over $1 billion a year. Motor vehicles are the principal source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 32% of the total amount.

The bill is important because it would lessen our dependence on cars. It is an innovative way to ensure that people would use alternative methods, particularly public transportation. We are one of the very few western democracies that do not have a national public transportation plan. There is no co-ordination within our country on how to lessen the dependence of the movement of people on our roads. The bill provides that option.

There are many economic benefits apart from the health ones. It lessens our dependence on using roads. Therefore it lessens the considerable costs that we have in terms of rebuilding our transportation arteries. It is a very significant deficit as members from across the country will attest. Almost all of us have some very serious significant problems in all of our ridings with respect to the transportation arteries in our country.

There has not been enough money applied to transportation arteries by the government. One source of revenue is gas taxes. The Canadian public would be surprised, in fact shocked, to know that only 4.5% of the revenues derived from gas taxes goes toward the improvement of transportation arteries. By comparison, some 90% of the money that is taken from gas taxes in the U.S. goes toward the improvement of transportation arteries.

We are no paragon of virtue in terms of public transportation. Perhaps, then, we ought to look not only within the bill but at the experiences within Europe. There were similar activities in Europe and the costs of private transportation use decreased. Private transportation use declined and public transportation increased dramatically.

My friend in the government made some assertions on the costs to the public purse of employing the bill. I take issue with that. I agree with him that there are certain costs. However those costs would be offset by the benefits not only in terms of health care but in terms of new construction on our arteries and greenhouse gas emissions which have a profound impact on agriculture. Greenhouse gas emissions and weather changes have had a profound impact on agriculture and on our gross domestic product. Therein lies some very strong economic evidence to support Bill C-209.

Canadians have done some very good work in looking at innovative ways to use our tax structure as a tool for environmental improvements. The tax structure could encourage the use of alternative fuels and alternative methods of utilizing energy. Those who use electrical power, solar power, or who have cars that do not use fossil fuels but rather combinations of methanol, ethanol and other substances that lessen emissions, should receive a tax credit.

Researchers who investigate other forms of energy use should also receive a tax credit. Perhaps gas taxes could be targeted toward the exploration, research and development of alternative fuels. There are quite a few researchers doing innovative work in a number of universities across Canada. Some excellent work on new types of electric fuel cells that hopefully will lessen our demand on fossil fuels is being carried out at the University of Victoria.

Bill C-209 could be a jumping off point into some very innovative and positive ways which the government could encourage the use of alternative fuels and alternative uses of energy.

Water is another area where there is abuse. The cost of water to us does not represent its true value. There are opportunities within our tax structure to encourage alternative uses of water and alternative methods to save water through the type of toilets we use. There are certain types of low flow toilets that decrease the amount of water use considerably.

There are alternative methods to water use within agriculture. Farmers have implemented very innovative ways, copied from Israel and Texas. They use low flow forms of agricultural irrigation that minimizes water use with maximal benefit. Those farmers, industries and consumers that are using alternative fuels of non-renewable resources should receive tax credits.

On the surface one might argue that there is a cost. My friend from the government is correct. That is, however, offset by savings in terms of encouraging this alternative method. The tax structure is a method of encouraging more responsible use of non-renewable resources that would provide not only an environment which is more conducive to our health but significant savings in terms of agriculture, health care and our economy as a whole.

I bring to the government's attention its failure to address this issue in a very substantive form and I congratulate the member for Jonquière for bringing this bill forward.

I encourage the government to work with the member for Jonquière and others in the House who are leaders in the environment such as the chair of the environment committee. He has been in the House for a long time and has some very profound and important ideas. He is also a member of the government. These members would advise us on what we could do to improve our environment.

I encourage the government to take a leadership role, step up to bat and look at the ideas within the House and our country. Considerable expertise, knowledge and research has been done. The government should work with the provinces to develop a comprehensive plan to have a more sustainable and healthier environment.