Debates of Feb. 26th, 2002

The Environment

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, dissension does not only exist here in this caucus, but Liberal premier Roger Grimes says that Kyoto will put us at a competitive disadvantage with our American counterparts, while Nancy Hughes Anthony of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce warns that we will be extremely uncompetitive if we go forward. Businesses and the provinces know that Kyoto will be a disaster for the economy, and not just in the west, and there is no evidence that it will do anything to reduce global warning.

How can the government blindly rush into a deal that will cause nothing but economic pain and no environmental gain?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that all countries of the world be preoccupied with the issue of climate change because it can cause problems not only today but in the generations to come. A good government thinks about the future. It is possible in Canada to remain competitive and make sure that our air is not polluted.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government signed the Kyoto protocol in 1997. Five years later, it says it is just beginning to develop a plan to implement it.

Why on earth did it sign this protocol if it did not have a plan at that time? Why should Canadians trust the government to come up with a fair and efficient plan when it still will not look at the real costs of signing the treaty?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, one of the proudest moments I have had as a member of the government and a parliamentary secretary was travelling to Bonn and being part of the Kyoto negotiations.

It is important to realize we had an aboriginal leader as part of our delegation. We had industry and we had non-government people. The government knows consultation needs to be meaningful. We will not stoop to crass regionalism using worst case scenarios. We have put $1.5 billion into this and we will continue to be committed.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I travelled to Trieste and heard what the other countries were talking about in Europe. I also saw how little Canada had done in terms of planning for the Kyoto protocol.

The environment minister claims it will cost maybe around $500 million. Yesterday the former assistant deputy minister of finance said no studies support that claim. Today an economist says that the government's own studies say that Kyoto will cost many times more than the minister claims. The fact is Kyoto will kill jobs and economic growth.

Why will the government not fess up to what it--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, again we are hearing hyperbole and fearmongering.

Much has been made about the disadvantages that ratifying Kyoto could possibly cost the government. More important is that Canada pays $1 billion a month in extreme climate changes and how to combat that within Canada.

I would also point out that the government has continued to invite the United States to the table. We are very cognizant this is a global issue. It is something that has to be dealt with on the international stage.

Highway Infrastructure

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is now talking about hope regarding highway construction in Quebec, but during the election campaign the Liberals made all sorts of firm commitments totalling billions of dollars.

What was a certainty has become a hope. If the government is less categorical today, it is simply because it is not prepared to invest all money that it promised.

Instead of talking about hope, could the Prime Minister confirm, as he suggested in the House, that the $2 billion promised for strategic infrastructure will be entirely available as soon as the act is passed?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, we said that we would work to achieve that goal.

In the case of highway 30, the hon. member clearly indicated that it would be a toll road.

We have a responsibility regarding highways. Therefore, we said that we would work within infrastructure programs. Under such programs, the provincial government must also pay its share. So far, they only want the federal government to pay, while they would get all the credit.

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

Mr. Speaker, this really does not make sense.

If the money is to become available as soon as the act is passed, as the Prime Minister is suggesting, how does he explain the fact that the Minister of Finance and his Secretary of State for Financial Institutions are continuing to say that only the savings on the service of the debt will be invested in infrastructure? At that rate, it would take seven years to achieve the objective of $2 billion mentioned in the budget.

Could the Prime Minister now explain this to us?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if tomorrow we decided to build a highway, it would take a few weeks before we would actually be spending money. It takes time to build a highway.

This is why the Minister of Finance, like any reasonable person, is anticipating that these amounts will have to be spent over a period of several years.

The Minister of Finance is not like the Bloc Quebecois. He is well aware that bridges are not built in a week.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is being very careful to avoid answering our questions regarding the amount of money available to fulfill its commitments with respect to highways.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the portion of the $2 billion infrastructure fund allocated for highways may reach 40%—or $800 million—for all of Canada, and that Quebec can realistically count on one quarter of this amount, or $200 million?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, first, we know that other infrastructure funds already exist for highways. We know that there is a $2 billion fund for strategic infrastructure.

With the participation of our partners, we may also choose highways. However, there is no question today of determining the exact amounts that will be go to each area in Canada.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by adding the $200 million that may be granted to Quebec for highway infrastructure to the $108 million set aside for roads, we come up with an envelope of $308 million.

Will the Minister of Transport admit that the total of these two amounts is still insufficient to cover the official commitments made by the federal government for highway 30, which total $357 million, not including the commitments made with respect to highways 175, 185 and 50?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the Bloc Quebecois is getting into the habit of inflating figures. But when it comes to highways, we can say that we need the participation of partners, including if possible, partners from the private sector.

Taxation

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last year the CIBC racked up $1.7 billion in profits yet paid only $92 million in income tax, an effective tax rate of only 5%. For CIBC bank tellers, the situation was quite different. On a $24,000 salary there was a 20% tax rate. Even Bay Street analysts cannot figure out how the CIBC did it.

Perhaps the finance minister could explain how the CIBC did it, because ordinary Canadians would just love the same treatment.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in 2000 Canadian banks and their subsidiaries paid about $3.5 billion in income taxes and capital taxes to the federal government. In fact they paid close to $6 billion to all levels of government.

The hon. member talked about the CIBC. The numbers I have in front of me show that 35% of CIBC's net income came from Canadian operations and that the banks paid substantial income tax. In fact their tax rate is close to 47%.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, even the finance minister must be able to see that something does not add up here.

The CIBC claims that most of its money was made in the Caribbean. Come on. The CIBC has 42 Caribbean branches and 1,170 Canadian branches. With 2% of its branches, the CIBC racked up 70% of its profits? I do not think so.

The finance minister has a choice, either close this gaping tax loophole or look the other way while all the other banks escape paying their fair share of taxes next year.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have just given the hon. member the numbers for the CIBC. Those are published numbers. She can check them. In fact, probably something does not add up and I think Tony Blair pointed that out to her in this House.

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Prime Minister has now talked to President Bush about softwood lumber. I wonder, in that conversation this morning did the Prime Minister ask the president to intervene directly with the U.S. commerce department? Did he ask the president to intervene directly with the U.S. lumber coalition? Did he receive a specific assurance of any initiatives by the president and if so, what initiatives will President Bush be taking?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think that when I talk with the president about these problems he takes them very seriously. I do not have to give him a list of the people he has to talk to. He knows what to do. He is the president and he has the authority. He wants to make sure that trade relations between Canada and the United States are good. He is looking into the problems that we discussed this morning.

As I said yesterday, I am hopeful that we will find a solution that will be acceptable both to Canadians and the American interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister said yesterday was that he was confident that there will be a solution before March 21. He cannot change the record now. U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci is quoted as saying that he would doubt that.

The ambassador is also quoted as suggesting the United States would consider suspending duties against Canadian softwood to allow more time for negotiations. Is that a conditional offer from the Americans? Specifically, would suspension of duties be conditional on Canada dropping our case against the United States at the World Trade Organization?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the president did not mention any of the proposals of the leader of the fifth party.

Money Laundering

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's largest securities regulator has revealed that Canadian firms are holding some 13,000 offshore accounts in jurisdictions blacklisted by the OECD. Things are worse than even the provincial securities regulator knows about because we obtained government documents showing that Fintrac will not even be up and running until at least June.

Why the delay in closing these money laundering loopholes? Why does the government not act now to stop this money laundering?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member did not get all the documents. The fact is that Fintrac is up and running. It was up and running as of November last year. It is already reporting on suspicious operations. Obviously it is adding to its files as time goes on. That is the reason for new regulations.

Fintrac is alive and well and has been operating since November.