Debates of May 16th, 2001

Taxation

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting it from Canadian taxpayers who have not noticed a dime in tax relief.

Today one of the leading private sector economists in the country, Dale Orr of WEFA, said that that small tax cuts promised by the government “would probably be too late to help the current weak economy”.

Surely the finance minister recognizes that given the current economic downturn we need some serious fiscal stimulus right now to protect Canadian jobs. Why will he not listen to these economists? Why is the government delaying tax relief? Why does it not provide it immediately in the economic statement tomorrow?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the government should be getting management advice from the party across the floor when it cannot even keep its own act together.

Notwithstanding that, all economists are saying that this is the largest tax stimulus in Canadian history and that we need to give it a chance to work its way into the economy. The economists have said almost unanimously that we will not be in deficit, that the economy is working very well and we need to give it a chance to work its way through the system.

The member knows full well that some of the deductions in terms of CCP and EI max out after six months, so we are going to see that come—

Organized Crime

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Justice's bill on organized crime, democratic organizations such as unions and political parties, with absolutely no connection to the underworld, could fall victim to criminal acts perpetrated by police officers and authorized by those with political authority.

Will the minister admit that there is a serious risk of slip-ups with this bill and that criminal acts that can be committed by police officers must be limited to organized crime?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical new law that is very important to the police across the country. In fact it is not a blank cheque. There are strict limits and controls, and it has direct political accountability.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we have someone who says he never interferes with investigations, yet he is going to give permission for criminal acts to be committed.

This is not going to be limited to organized crime. That requires an organized crime bill. Democracy is threatened if this right granted to policy officers is expanded to include just any investigation into anyone and anything.

Do they realize this? Is the minister going to take this into account? Is the solicitor general, he who claims not to interfere in anything, gong to start meddling in something, for once? If so, let him meddle in his own affairs, not those of the judges.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, what the government wants to do is give the police the tools they need to do their job. Do we not want anyone to work undercover in police services across the country? If we do not give them the ability to be able to work undercover then they cannot fight organized crime. The government is going to fight and will continue to fight organized crime.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the solicitor general said that there would be direct political accountability for police immunity.

But each time we ask the minister about an RCMP investigation—into Shawinigate, HRDC or CINAR, for instance—he tells us that he will not get involved and that that is the way it should be.

Does the minister understand that the direct involvement of politicians in these investigations leaves the door wide open to significant slip-ups and that the only logical solution is to have the judiciary authorize these practices?

Will he admit that this is so?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is a tool that all the police forces across the country want and need if they want to fight organized crime. What has to happen is a report must be issued each year to the solicitor general. If they overstep their bounds then they also commit a criminal act and can be charged.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Justice said that the Canadian tradition was to separate the judicial function from the investigative function.

The minister is mistaken because, in Canada, it is the judiciary that authorizes illegal acts such as wiretapping and house searches.

Will the minister explain why she prefers to give the police the power to authorize themselves to commit illegal acts, rather than give this power to a judge, as required by the universally recognized rule of law?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the fundamental difference between a situation where a judge authorizes a warrant for a wiretap and the kinds of decisions that will be made in the context of the solicitor general or provincial counterparts as it relates to organized crime.

There is a more important issue here. We on this side have been listening to that party bleat on for months about why the government does not take action against organized crime. The government has taken action. We have given our police the necessary tools to do their jobs. I would ask them to support us.

National Drinking Water Standards

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, 240 communities in Newfoundland today have boil orders for their drinking water. The Newfoundland government has released a report showing that 76 communities in Newfoundland have bacterial levels 10 and 20 times higher than anything considered remotely safe. Water from the Twillingate taps has so much bacteria in it scientists say that they have lost count.

Will the bottled water over at 24 Sussex have to run out before the government will be willing to spend a share of the surplus to solve the water problems?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, when the government announced the municipal infrastructure program, a $2 billion program which will generate investments of $6 billion in this country, we said very clearly that priority should be given to green infrastructures, which will improve the quality of air and water for the citizens of this country.

That is what the Canadian government has done. I understand that the provinces and municipalities have already submitted projects seeking to resolve this problem.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, reliable estimates are that $4 billion a year are needed to tackle the water crisis alone and the government has offered up $400 million.

Newfoundlanders today simply cannot drink their water. The Prime Minister seems to think it is perfectly okay to export the water. The government is crowing about a $5 billion surplus higher than projected. If the government gets started today with a billion dollars annually it could at least begin to solve the problem.

How long is the Prime Minister prepared to wait before he will guarantee that—

[The Speaker]

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, this is a program of $6 billion which will help municipalities across the country to have good infrastructure and to improve the quality of the air and water for their citizens. This is a major effort from our government to help municipalities achieve those goals.

Business Development Bank Of Canada

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the law requires a five year review of the activities of the Business Development Bank. That includes the period in which two presidents of that bank, Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder, mysteriously left their duties.

The industry minister has written me to say that the review will not investigate those mysterious departures because they are administrative matters. That breaks the spirit of the law and shows contempt for parliament.

Will the Prime Minister stop the coverup and allow the full investigation intended by the law of parliament?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery there. Everything is transparent. The only mystery here is who is shifting from the Reform Party to the Conservative Party.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the act allows the government to delay tabling this review until July 13, conveniently after parliament has risen.

Will the Prime Minister, not his puppet, give us a commitment that this review will be published in full on that date?

To avoid a situation where a Liberal majority might limit the witnesses who could be called in examination of this report, will the Prime Minister undertake to have the review submitted to a joint committee of this House and of the other place?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the hon. member, and I will use that word in addressing him, uses the word puppets. He should be ashamed because the attack is only a sign of his weakness in his argument and nothing else. He should pay very close attention to his leadership and not ours.

National Defence

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, NORAD is vital for the security and sovereignty of Canada.

Several prominent individuals, including Canada's own deputy commander of NORAD, Lieutenant General Macdonald, have said that failing to support missile defence in principle will mean the beginning of the end of NORAD.

On this basis what possible grounds can the government have for delaying its decision in principle?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we have just signed a new five year agreement with the United States with respect to NORAD.

NORAD does have a very strong purpose and function. It is a useful defence of North America for Canada and the United States.

With respect to missile defence, as we have often said, we are into consultations. In fact, we began those consultations yesterday.

NORAD still has a very clear function, a very clear purpose and is of value to Canada and the United States regardless of our decision on missile defence.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told the commons that MPs will be able to debate the missile defence issue before any decision is taken regarding Canada's involvement.

My question for the Prime Minister is, will MPs have the final decision on that issue through a vote here in the House of Commons?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, decisions like that are made by the government which has the confidence of the House of Commons. It is the way we operate. We will have a debate and opinions will be expressed. There will be one moment when they can vote non-confidence in the government if we have not made the decision they want.

What is surprising is that they do not know the facts. They have not studied the problem and they are already committed. I think it is better to have hearings and discussions and then to decide after that what the allies should do.

Organized Crime

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that our party had long fought for legislation against organized crime, and that is true. All the while, from the other side of the House, they said it was not necessary.

We fought for legislation against organized crime, not a law that allowed political leaders to intervene in police investigations.

Will the minister realize that her bill goes far beyond organized crime and threatens democracy itself?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing. That is the party that asked the government to consider invoking the notwithstanding clause to deal with organized crime in the province of Quebec.

What my colleague, the solicitor general, and I have done is introduce legislation after consulting with the provinces, including Quebec, with police forces, with other stakeholders and after listening to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on which the Bloc had members. I would hope that the Bloc gets behind this legislation to protect—