Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2009

Criminal Code

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga South for his intervention.

I would point out, however, that for the first several minutes of his speech, he did not speak to this bill whatsoever and there was a previous point of order to that effect.

Therefore, I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will go directly to the substance of the bill.

One of the reasons that I support the bill is that Canada would actually become the first country that I know of to actually entrench such a bill into law. Many people would ask: What is the purpose behind the bill because it does not really mean anything? Is it more symbolic than anything concrete?

I suppose one could argue that yes, that is quite conceivable because the bill basically, just with more certainty, speaks to the fact that anyone who either attempts a suicide bombing or is even successful should be considered a terrorist and that act an act of terrorism.

One would say obviously that is an act of terrorism. Suicide bombings occur for a reason and that is because a terrorist, usually a terrorist cell, wants to create anarchy, fear and confusion in the civilized world and by the use of suicide bombings is able to create that level of uncertainty and fear. They are designed for that type of action and reaction.

Currently, if a suicide bomber has been apprehended before he or she is able to complete the act, that person quite conceivably would be charged with attempting an act of terrorism, but the bill gives more certainty to that. I think from a symbolic standpoint it is extremely important because it allows our country to be the first country in the civilized world to say that we will not stand by and allow this type of action to take place without swift and severe retribution.

The one thing that the bill also does, which I appreciate quite sincerely, is that it would allow posthumously, after a suicide bomber has completed the act, to go after the sponsors of that act for some form of restitution or retribution. Currently, that does not exist.

Therefore, I think the bill has important elements in it. It sends a very strong message to the rest of the free world, the democratic world, that this type of action, suicide bombings that are unfortunately so prevalent in the world today, should not be tolerated at any time and at any level.

I know that I will certainly be supporting the bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it as well. With due respect to the good senator, I am firmly convinced that this bill will eventually pass.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my voice to those who have commended this bill today. It sounds like this bill has all party support, which is a rare thing in this place.

I note that there are several prominent former politicians in this country who have also supported this bill. An online petition has been written to encourage senators and parliamentarians to support this bill, a petition that was originated by the group Canadians Against Suicide Bombing.

Before I name some of the folks who have actually supported this bill, because I think it is important to underline the cross party support for this bill, I will read a little bit from the petition that was online. The petition reads:

Suicide bombing has become all too common in many countries throughout the world. Thousands of civilians are killed and maimed to advance a cause based on falsely implanted expectations of glory and martyrdom. We say no cause can justify suicide bombing.

Introduced by Senator Jerry Grafstein, Bill S-210 aims beyond those who strap explosives to their bodies and aim to cause maximum pain, suffering, death and dismemberment. It will help focus on those who promote terrorism by teaching, organizing and financing the killers in the name of ill-conceived ideology, distorted belief or abhorrent political conviction. It will help pursue the individuals promoting this heinous tactic. Penal statutes must unambiguously state which actions are criminalized. Rather than assuming that suicide bombing is covered implicitly in the Criminal Code, this amendment covers it explicitly.

I think that is the important thing here. The previous speaker talked a little bit about the symbolic nature of the bill. Some may look at this bill as a rather short bill with not many words in it and they may question why it is needed, but there is a symbolic importance to this bill that is recognized by commentators, political people, among others who have commented on the need for this bill.

Some of the people who have signed that petition, which I just read, some prominent Canadians and politicians of all stripes, are: the hon. Ed Broadbent, for example, a former NDP leader; and the right hon. Kim Campbell, former prime minister and attorney general. We can see that the right hon. Joe Clark has also signed the petition.

Going down the list in terms of the politicians who have signed, we see even the current Minister of State of Foreign Affairs signed a petition for the bill that preceded this back when he was working in television and media. We see that the hon. Ralph Klein, my former premier in Alberta, is one of the signatories to this bill. The hon. Flora MacDonald, a previous cabinet minister in this country, and Preston Manning, the former Reform leader, have also signed the petition.

We can see that there are a significant number of prominent politicians. Even the current Liberal member for Toronto Centre was a signatory to this petition.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

This member will have six minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the report released by the Commissioner of Official Languages last May regarding the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver, he states that unless drastic action is taken the Vancouver and Toronto airports will be unable to properly greet visitors in French. He also states that the administrations of Air Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency should work together with their parliamentarians to ensure that French is on an equal footing with English.

Last September, in his report “Raising our Game for Vancouver 2010: Towards a Canadian Model of Linguistic Duality in International Sport”, Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser, pointed out, among other things, that ten or so federal institutions had dismal results in terms of the provision of services in French for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver. In addition, of the points of service that are designated bilingual under airport authority, only 10% are bilingual.

And yet, the Olympics are drawing near.

In its Constitution, Canada recognizes French and English as equal. Furthermore, French is one of the International Olympic Committee's official languages. The fact that we are nearing the end of October 2009, just three and a half months away from the games, and that we are still talking about serious shortcomings throughout the Canadian Olympic organization speaks volumes about the lack of respect for Quebeckers, Acadians and Franco-Canadians in this country.

The goal is a simple one: Canada, the host country, must be able to serve in French anyone who requests it anywhere in Vancouver, Whistler or Richmond, the cities in which athletes will be competing during the 2010 winter games.

A lot of questions remain unanswered. Where is the French signage and the French documentation for visitors, athletes, coaches and tourists?

Why is the City of Richmond still negotiating with Olympics organizers to determine whether it will have signage in French? The mayor of Richmond wants to go back to his municipal council for the next round of negotiations on the presence of French in the city. Why has the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, VANOC, not yet forced its partners to be reasonable about the French fact?

Will Vancouver Tourism and BC Tourism kiosks be able to offer services in French? Will they make an active effort to do so?

Will the supposedly bilingual volunteers, the 3,500 recruits, be functional in French at the C level for comprehension, B for written and C for oral? What about their housing and transportation? Will we lose officially bilingual volunteers because of shortages in these two areas? Will the 7.5 million words to be translated into French actually be translated?

The Cultural Olympiad will not be showcasing many francophone artists. That is a problem. We hope that francophone artists from British Columbia, along with Quebeckers, Acadians, and Franco-Canadians in general will be well represented.

A Vancouver Games that respects the French fact in a country where French is an official language would be a fitting legacy for the francophone community in British Columbia. Among other things, let us consider authentically bilingual signage.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the issue raised by the member for Gatineau.

Our government is committed to the protection and promotion of both official languages. Indeed, across Canada we are committed to this, including in our airports nationwide.

I should note that although airport authorities are private entities and not agents of the Crown, they must meet various official language obligations. Indeed, because they are private entities, they are responsible themselves for ensuring that they meet these obligations, which, of course, are pursuant to the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act and the Official Languages Act and all of its regulations.

Canada's transport minister has had very productive meetings with the Commissioner of Official Languages on this particular matter and they both recognize that there are cases where action is needed and concerns will be raised with the airport authorities in question.

I would invite my friend to come out west. I know that in my own riding I have many Quebeckers working there. Some estimates are that up to 5,000 Quebeckers live and work in my riding. I have to say, first-hand, that I have not had one complaint from any French-speaking or English-speaking Canadian in relation to what is available currently at our airports.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games open in 113 days, and there is still no guarantee that French will be on an equal footing with English at the games.

Where is the leadership of the Treasury Board in coordinating federal institutions with regard to official languages at the Vancouver games? Are the deputy heads of federal institutions making an appropriate effort to ensure that French-language services are available for the games?

In closing, I will quote Commissioner Fraser, on page 30 of his 2008-09 annual report:

To prevent such an outcome, all institutions involved, including the Vancouver Airport Authority, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, Air Canada and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, must roll up their sleeves and work together, along with the Canada Border Services Agency, to showcase Canada’s linguistic duality to the world.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again I would invite the member and his family to come out and enjoy the Olympics in western Canada and to come to my own riding to see the Official Languages Act at work, to hear the French and English discussions between parties, to see how much they are truly represented and to see how proud all Canadians are of both official languages.

I would like to quote the Minister of Transport when he answered this question originally. It is very germane to the issue. He said:

Mr. Speaker, we very much appreciate the excellent work done by the commissioner over the past year. He has examined the areas of concern and has advised this government. I met with the commissioner a few weeks ago and I am ready to take action. He gave me the figures concerning those two major Canadian airports. I am prepared to take action to ensure that all Canadians will receive quality service in the official language of their choice.

We are very proud to have both official languages and I personally thank the member for the question.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a question I raised on September 17 about the harmonized sales tax.

A Globe and Mail article on September 19 had the headline, “HST's price tag revealed: consumers hit hardest”. The article states, “Consumers will bear the brunt of proposed tax changes in Ontario and British Columbia while businesses reap windfall savings of $6.9 billion”. It is referring to a TD report. The article goes on to say, “The TD report adds fresh fuel to accusations...that harmonization is little more than a tax grab aimed at benefiting businesses at the expense of consumers”.

New Democrats have been raising this issue in the House because the HST shifts taxes from businesses to families. An average family of four will now have to pay an additional $1,500 per year. Of course that will depend on the family's consumption patterns.

Many times in the House we have heard the Conservatives say that this is a provincial matter, yet the seeds of this were sown a number of years ago by the finance minister in his 2006 budget. In that budget the government invited all provinces that had not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of the provincial retail sales tax with the federal GST.

There are a number of reports from various newspapers. “Feds still pressuring Province to sign on to HST”. That was in the Summerside, P.E.I. Journal Pioneer on August 10. “Ottawa made Victoria an offer it couldn't refuse on HST -- $1.6 billion in cash” That is from the Vancouver Sun of August 1, 2009.

We see this pressure from the federal government for provinces to engage in the HST. When I raised this question on September 17, it was in the context of housing. A fellow by the name of Bill Tieleman in the province of British Columbia has been leading the anti-HST campaign. He said that when buying a brand new home, houses and apartments priced under $400,000 would get an HST rebate, but the problem with that is that 40% of all homes in British Columbia cost more than $400,000. He said not to forget real estate commissions. Those fees will go from 5% to 12% HST. With respect to condominiums, all building maintenance as well as property management firms will charge an extra 7% HST. We can see these direct impacts on people in British Columbia.

I could spend my entire four minutes going over the list of goods and services that will be subject to the harmonized sales tax, but there are couple of others I want to specifically mention. According to a B.C. government document on transitional HST rules, if people want to beat the impending B.C. harmonized sales tax, they should pay for their funeral now, because it is one of the only things people will not be taxed an extra 7% on if the HST goes ahead on July 1, 2010. The B.C. government itself is suggesting that people prepay for their funerals so they will not have to pay HST once July 1, 2010 rolls around.

The B.C. Restaurant Association estimates that British Columbians will pay an additional $694 million on restaurant meals alone if the HST is introduced. In these tough economic times what we do not need is restaurant owners, hairdressers and all those other service providers to lose customers when we are actually asking people to get out and support their local businesses.

This unfair tax shift to consumers is unfortunate in these times.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned it in her speech and she knows full well, as does every member of the House, that the decision of whether or not to harmonize provincial sales taxes with the GST is the sole responsibility of the province.

Not only does she know that, but there are other members in this place who know it very intimately. In fact, we have two former premiers, of the provinces of B.C. and Ontario, sitting in the House as members of the official opposition. As the member well knows, the sitting member for Vancouver South and the sitting member for Toronto Centre, former premiers of B.C. and Ontario respectively, have said in the past that the decision of whether or not to harmonize their provincial sales tax with the GST is the responsibility of provinces.

That is well documented. I would point out that the premier of my home province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Brad Wall, has already stated that Saskatchewan does not intend to harmonize its provincial sales tax with the GST. In other words, it is strictly up to the province. Some provinces want to go down that road. They can see some advantages to harmonizing their sales tax provincially with the GST for business reasons and to attract business investment into the provinces.

Premier Wall has stated that he does not want to harmonize Saskatchewan's sales tax with the GST because he feels that it might place too much of an added burned on the citizens. However, the decision is strictly that of the province, and the member well knows that.

In the few moments I have left, I just want to point out that that is not the reason this member and other members of the NDP continually raise this issue. We all know that members of the NDP have never been known as tax cutters. In fact, they like to raise taxes because it is the tax-and-spend philosophy that they have always held.

The reason this member and her colleagues in the NDP are making the HST situation such an issue in the House is that there will be a federal byelection occurring very shortly in British Columbia. The member assumes, and perhaps she is correct, that this is a very hot-button issue with the residents of British Columbia.

By asking this and other questions during the regular question period on a day-to-day basis, she is trying to impress upon the residents of British Columbia that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are the ones who are trying to force this down the throats of consumers in British Columbia. By contrast, she is trying to portray her candidate in the federal byelection as the one who opposes the HST while the other main candidates do not.

That is the reason these questions are coming so frequently in the House. It is not because the NDP opposes harmonization. Given the opportunity, the NDP would raise taxes across the board in any environment and any jurisdiction. This member and her colleagues are raising this issue strictly for political reasons.

Quite frankly, it is a sham. I think that most Canadians can see through that sham. I am here to put it on the record.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this member and his government are not prepared to take some responsibility for their role in advocating for the HST.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, as far back as 2006, the Conservative Minister of Finance was talking about HST being good economic policy. In fact, what we have seen in this past budget are inducements to provinces to implement the HST.

The government might try to distance itself from this and claim that it is simply a provincial responsibility, but the truth of the matter is that it has been playing an active role in getting provinces to sign on to it, $1.6 billion worth of an active role, in the province of British Columbia.

The reason New Democrats have been so consistent in raising this is that we are hearing from our constituents from one end of the province to the other that they do not want the harmonized sales tax. They do not want to pay extra money for funerals, gym fees, housing and restaurant meals.

If the government were seriously worried about our citizens, it would step back from the role that it is taking in the inducement for the HST.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a source of amusement for me to sit here and hear that NDP member say that they have listened to the people and that the people have said they do not want higher taxes.

Let us look at the record. We brought in tax reductions for all Canadians in our last budget. The NDP voted against it. We reduced the GST to 6% from 7%. The NDP voted against that. We further reduced the GST to 5%. The NDP voted against that. We brought in tax-cutting measures at every step of the way for personal income taxes and business taxes. Every time we brought in a tax reduction regime or piece of legislation contained in our budget, the NDP voted against that measure.

I find it amazing that the member would have the unmitigated gall to stand in the House now and try to pretend that her party is actually in favour of lowering taxes. They have never been in favour of lowering taxes in the past, and they will not be in the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.)