Sue Barnes

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say what my personal priorities are. Hopefully these reflect the views of a number of my constituents on issues that have been raised across the country and in a prebudget debate that was held in my riding a couple of weeks ago.

I will start from the premise that fiscal credibility is important to our government. Fiscal credibility was paid for by Canadians. It was paid for by processes and successive prudent expenditures, prudent investments and prudent budgeting which have brought us to the point where we can enjoy the $2 billion plus of savings on interest on our national debt. This brought us to the point before September 11 where we were looking at a very large skills and learning agenda and a very large innovation agenda. These are good, positive things for Canadians to invest in. I believe there is a difference between spending without thought and true investment that is stimulus.

So many hours, so many days of weeping and wailing have been spent wondering whether or not we were going to have a budget. Whether or not it was called a budget, there were $100 billion of tax cuts spread over five years and $20 billion went into health care. A year ago many things went through this parliament and were effective. President Bush, our neighbour to the south, had to wait for the legislation but we were already on that train and that is part of the stimulus that will continue.

Most Canadians would agree that we should not go into a deficit position at this point in time. I have heard from some people who are willing to go with a debt to GDP ratio that continues downward which would allow for a few billion dollars in deficit in one year. Fiscal credibility is important psychologically at this point in time. The prudence that has been the hallmark of our government, even though it has not been the traditional Liberal philosophy is the current Liberal philosophy. We are an accountable government. We have made proper investments.

Turning to my priorities in investments, I come from London, Ontario. I represent a city that is very rich in industrial research capacity, medical research capacity, engineering and social science research capacity. Over many years the government has talked about having moved Canada up the scale from being one of the lower countries in the OECD to being fifth in the world in supporting R and D. This is a valid investment. There can be no interruption in the current flow of money to research and development in my opinion.

Another issue that has been spoken about in research circles is the indirect cost of research. The part of me that thinks with a jurisdictional hat says that historically at our post-secondary education facilities the infrastructure supporting all of this work has been borne by the provinces. However it is our productivity agenda. It is our innovation agenda. Therefore I believe there is no more capacity for these researchers to absorb the cost of their work if we are not contributing in some way to the soft costs of doing that research, whether it occurs in a university or in a hospital. I come from the province of Ontario where unfortunately per capita spending on post-secondary education is the lowest of all the provinces and territories. That is an appalling situation but it happens to be the truth.

If this cannot be done in this budget, I would ask the Minister of Finance to put a marker on the table so that the research community knows that this is a concept that has been agreed to, understood and will go forward. I would urge that there be some start in this budget. The position has to be made very clear so we can extend hope to all the people who are helping with future productivity in Canada. That is very important not just for my riding, but it is important across the country, whether that comes from our granting councils or the CIHR, which took over from the Medical Research Council of Canada.

There are some fine point tools that we can utilize. On October 12 when I was in my riding the United Way asked for favourable tax treatment on capital gains when people donate stocks to charities. The United Way was very pleased to see that was extended permanently. The tool is appropriate for use in public foundations also.

More and more as governments, especially provincial governments, circumnavigate themselves into a corner by putting the no deficit legislation into place, we are going to be looking to our charities and our public foundations to help carry the weight of the true social need that exists in the country. That is a technical provision which I do not think will cost large sums of dollars to the fisc. However it will have an incredible impact on donations by concerned corporations and individuals in this country to transfer shares by having a more favourable capital gains tax situation. That is being extended to the charities right now. There is no logical reason that the foundations could not get similar treatment.

I would like to talk about the aboriginal communities. One of the reasons I asked my government to go on the finance committee was so I could move the aboriginal agenda forward. There has to be sufficient funding to continue all of the necessary work. It is true that the standard of living enjoyed by most Canadians is not shared to the same degree by our aboriginal communities. This is a necessary agenda. It seems that some communities always are told to wait. There is always a reason that we cannot take care of their needs.

The needs are pretty basic in the aboriginal communities. They are safe water, housing and education needs. We should understand as a government that the demographics of this particular population is different from that of average Canadians. There is going to be a huge increase in aged people in the non-native population but it is the reverse in the native population. In fact there is going to be a 25% increase in aboriginal youth before 2015. All of those youth need the tools to be educated and the department is the all encompassing vehicle for transfers at this time, unless they come out from under the Indian Act like the Nisga'a which I celebrate. They need those funds.

A number of people across the aisle have talked about human capital and I concur. My metaphor for this budget is an accordion. Some programs, for instance the security programs, will have to be squeezed in. In other words what might have been a five year roll out on security items and security spending perhaps will have to come down to a one year or two year roll out. Obviously that will have to go up and that means that type of spending will not be a one time hit. It is something that Canadians are demanding.

There are ongoing security needs in our country, not only for personal safety reasons, but economic security as well. This includes making sure our borders are working properly and that low risk goods and people get through in a timely manner. All of our resources, whether human intelligence resources or enforcement resources, must be there to help our markets work properly. We are a trading nation. We have to have the confidence at our borders and in our land of all of our trading partners to make our economy work.

The security agenda is high on my list but I see other areas being expanded a bit. I believe in our innovation agenda. I believe in our jobs and skills agenda. If it is necessary in the very short term to roll out those programs a little slower, it is not saying we do not value what we are doing. I am just saying we must live within our budgetary means. This is important to Canadians.

Many valuable tools, techniques and programs are being put before us. No one in this Chamber does not want the preservation of our environment. No one in this Chamber does not want a federal park that we can all enjoy. Perhaps we cannot acquire the 14 parks that we say we need to complete the infrastructure of parks across the nation right now. Perhaps that is not on the table today. Maybe we should be doing the options to lease around the parks where we think we will be working in the future trying to make sure they are there when we do have the fiscal capacity.

This is an important debate. It cannot be about the historical context or the wish list because from what I have seen, everybody comes to the table saying, and very rightly so, that their investment is more important and is the one that needs to be funded. Most of them could be funded if we had a wish fountain but in reality we have tax revenues. Our economy is now slower than it was and that means there is less money coming into our fisc. There may be more drains on it as people need temporary employment and to get to their next period of employment, assistance from the government.

It is interesting that for the first time across the country, including the west, I heard that there is an important role for government in the lives of people. On September 11 it was not the private corporations that they looked to for security, it was the government. We have to fund properly our security element which has a military element.

To my mind there is a division between the military component and the security component. How I have interpreted what I have heard across the country is that it is not so much a discussion about hardware as it is about humans and using technology properly.

Even the technology costs are not going to be a one time cost. Nobody has ever set up a technologically advanced office and said that now that they have bought a computer, that is it and they do not have to do anything for the next 20 years. We all know that updates are needed. Even the hardware is not a one time cost when we get into biometrics at our borders. These are important points to consider.

I want to talk about dedicated taxes. I heard that especially with respect to highways. Dedicated taxes take away from the flexibility of governments to react appropriately in times of crisis and need.

It is with very good reason that money comes into the federal government by way of general revenues. Those people arguing, and they know who they are across the country, that they have spent so much on a certain tax and therefore so much should be reinvested, cannot understand that if everybody had their silo of dedicated taxes, we as a government could not respond to the true needs. The true needs are here and abroad.

I will put one small marker on the table. Historically Canada has done a very poor job overseas as a percentage of GDP in contributing to international assistance. We, with many countries, had a goal of 0.7 of 1% at one time. We are well below that.

Even if the foreign aid goes more to the good governance envelope, which I firmly believe should be part of the agenda, there are situations where we are spending money overseas on military and peacekeeping operations where if the governance of a country, the strength of the democracy of a country were there and assisted in the first place, perhaps we would not be going out in a military fashion after the fact.

Canada has a role to play. It is a very small portion of the overall budget picture and I would not like to see it abandoned at this time.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak as an immigrant because I am an immigrant. I came here from Malta and I became a Canadian citizen when I was about 14 years old.

I think most of us coming to this country celebrate the freedoms we have here and we try to contribute to the best of our very diverse abilities.

As an immigrant, there is nothing wrong with wanting to retain one's heritage or attending a Maltese Canadian club, an Italian Canadian club, a Tamil organization or a Sikh organization.

Among the Canadian population, people may be doing activities that no one in this Chamber would agree with. What we want to do is weed out the terrorist activity and the financing of the terrorist activity but we must do it with the right tools.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer the question to the best of my ability. I am not an expert but I think experts would tell us that freedom of association is a charter right. As such, if we just take pure membership we would then be making this law unconstitutional. I have heard it said by the hon. member's leader and by many other people that it is one of the basic principles, which is what we are talking about when we talk about balancing rights and freedoms.

If I were a parent and my children were misbehaving I would not tell them that they were wrong or that they were bad children. I would tell them that what they did was wrong and that they should change their activity. It goes to what we are saying here. I like the way the bill has crafted definitions of terrorism. We are taking it away from the concept of groups of people and putting onto people doing wrong activities, terrorist activities.

I like how we have gone to the 12 international conventions. I certainly applaud that we are now able to accede to the last two conventions and that we are the fourth in the world on one of them.

The understanding of where the balancing act should be is important because otherwise we would have a sledgehammer coming down and the tools we were searching for would be lost. The balancing act has been done for very good reason.

I am actually concerned about a lot of the tools we are now giving to the police. I am concerned that the knowledge and safeguards we might have on some levels may not get down to the operational level. However I believe people are well intentioned, including the police and enforcement services.

We need to go forward with a little faith in the system but if I had my druthers I would rather go forward with the protection under the charter of rights and freedoms.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Hamilton West.

I appreciate the opportunity to consider the bill that is before the House. Rather than read through all the points that other people have said, I thought I would convey some of my thoughts about what I hope the committee members will look at when the bill is before them. They have a very difficult job looking at legislation and they do not have the vast experience of another context. This is a new context for all of us. It is a new context for the legislators, for people in our enforcement agencies, for the people who have drafted the bill and for all people who have anxieties.

We have to be calm and we have to be rational. This legislation will last longer than our fears. This legislation could last indefinitely.

There are provisions in the legislation calling for a three year review. I have already heard many people suggest there be sunset provisions, to use the common vernacular.

I have to think of the practicality. What would it mean if we were in the middle of a case and this legislation sunsetted based on provisions in the legislation? Perhaps the committee could consider sunsetting parts of the legislation, perhaps some of those provisions that are the investigative hearings or the preventative arrest, new procedures that we are coming to. Perhaps we could look at that. To see what are the practical advantages and disadvantages perhaps would be something worthy of attention by the committee.

Earlier I heard statements indicating that we will not be testing this at the supreme court for constitutional predisposition. It is not impossible but it is very difficult for courts without factual situations to deliberate on the constitutionality of a law. Usually individual cases have different levels of hearings from trial to appeals all the way up to the supreme court. They are heard on the basis of specific facts of whether a provision is inside or outside, constitutional or unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, it is void and we start over.

The bill before us today is new. It must have been incredibly difficult work for the teams of lawyers and parliamentarians around the cabinet table to look at this legislation and try to make it charter proof. Many of us would agree that some of these provisions are riding pretty close to what we would consider a normal edge.

All of us in this Chamber are concerned about the charter of rights and freedoms. We fought very hard in Canada to get that charter. We do not want to give it up lightly. It is our obligation as parliamentarians to closely scrutinize this bill. There is a need to get some appropriate legislation in place, but we do not have to be on the steamroller. We can take the time to ask questions, to do the work, to make the necessary examinations and to call a number of witnesses who are experts in their various fields. We also have to live with the reality of today. It is a different world after September 11.

Let me go back to before September 11. We think this is a new bill. I am a member of the finance committee and last spring we looked at Bill C-16, the deregistration of charities provisions. It has found a new life as part 6 of this bill. The whole bill in theory is under the auspices of the Minister of Justice. However part 6 is actually under the auspices of the minister of revenue and the solicitor general. That is the reincarnation of what was Bill C-16 except there have been a few changes.

One of the major changes is the inclusion of definitions of terrorism that were missing in Bill C-16 and which the committee had stated were needed. It also changes the period of potential inquiry into hearings from three years to seven years. That is quite an incredible increase.

What else is different about these parts? First let me speak to the parts that are specifically under the Minister of Justice and all the various provisions, whether they are changing other pieces of legislation or are new punishments, new crimes or new powers.

In large part society is leaning toward the acceptance of security over freedom, except we always have to take into account the proportionality test that any court would look at in a piece of legislation like this. Are the crime and the outcome related? Are they proportional? This is when section 1 of the charter comes into play.

Even though I have not gone through all of these sections in detail, I believe that a large number of people in Canada will come to the conclusion that even though these are unusual limiting provisions and procedures, they would be willing to go this far in these extraordinary situations. The proportionality is there, although it is not laid out in stone.

The proportionality test is different in part 6. Part 6 is not about criminal law. In criminal law there has to be mens rea. The person has to have thought about it. The person has to have knowingly done something wrong, it has be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was wrong, and then there are consequences.

There are a lot of safeguards in that system. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard. It is difficult to prove and there is a good reason why it is difficult to prove. We have higher sentence structures in the bill. I agree with those structures.

Part 6 is an administrative procedure that is talking about the result of stripping a charitable status. That is the outcome of all of the procedures.

There are some provisions based on something we are already doing as a government in section 40 of the Immigration Act to set up a special procedure where there is a hearing before a judge. Under the Immigration Act it usually is the immigration minister and the solicitor general. In this particular piece of legislation it would be the solicitor general and the revenue minister, CCRA. They will take some evidence. The evidence they want to show is not evidence that would be revealed in a court. Why? It is sensitive classified material. Perhaps it puts at risk a personal information source.

The ministers have to take this on reasonable grounds. Basically this is the level of proof when someone is charged and there is an arrest. This is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the civil balance of probabilities. There are different bars. It is a fairly low bar.

When we were examining this section, we were concerned with a series of potential problems that could have a very chilling effect on the charities in Canada. These charities have made their views known. The committee had not finished its hearings. In fairness to the government, it had not made its case yet.

Serious concerns were laid out. People can read our data in the finance committee transcripts of the hearings last spring. The government was aware of these. We thought the legislation would not go in the form it was in. We thought there could be changes. In fact, it came to us for our input because it was draft legislation.

It is here now and it is unchanged. Many organizations are fearful of the outcome of this legislation. I particularly want to say that this procedure under subsection 40.1(5.1) has never constitutionally been upheld in any court because it was excluded by the Attorney General of Canada in the Ahani decision on section 40.

I have made my concerns known to members inside the various departments here. I will have them give my concerns to anyone who is interested. There are many good areas which we have to look at carefully. I am supportive, as would all of us be, the doves and hawks, of getting the work done and dealing with terrorism.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports from the Canadian Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 40th Canadian Regional Conference which was held in Edmonton, Alberta from July 16 to 22, 2001 and the 47th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, which was held in Australia from September 4 to 14, 2001.

[Discrimination, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Islam is one of the world's religions practised by many people both here in Canada and around the globe. Islam promotes peace and does not support terrorism.

In our words and actions we must ensure that our Muslim friends and neighbours are not targeted or threatened by the ignorance of those who do not make the fundamental distinction between actions of a minority of terrorists and a faith community. Events of recent weeks left no one unaffected.

Let us make sure that in our actions and words we in Canada recognize and hold precious our freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of the person. We cannot compound either intentionally or thoughtlessly the hurt and anguish that we all feel. Let us not forget that Muslims were also among the victims of this senseless act of violence.

As Canadians we find strength in our diversity and in the richness of our cultures. Together we are stronger.

[International Child Abduction, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly capture some of the essence of what I hear as agreement in the Chamber on this motion.

As outlined in the government's initial response to the motion, we do celebrate the fact that Canada has an internationally recognized record of achievement domestically and on the world stage in responding to parental international child abduction. Today I am here to say that the government's position is supportive of the motion before the House.

Twenty years ago Canada initiated negotiations that led to the drafting of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. From the original three countries, including Canada, the number of countries that have become party to the Hague convention has risen to over seventy.

Canada has consistently encouraged countries to become party to the Hague convention, which remains the only multilateral international instrument designed to prevent and resolve cases of parental international child abduction. Canada is at the forefront of international efforts to ensure that the Hague convention is implemented effectively in other countries. In particular, Canada was represented at the recent fourth special commission which met in March 2001 to review the operation of this convention. Everything can always be improved, of course.

In cases where the Hague convention does not apply, Canada offers significant assistance to left behind Canadian parents, always with the goal of securing the safe return of the child to Canada. Canada has also negotiated two innovative bilateral agreements, one with Egypt and one with Lebanon, which are not party to the Hague convention itself. This has helped us develop measures to help resolve cases of child abduction to non-Hague convention countries.

As a co-ordinator of much of this work, Canada has in place a world recognized best practice program to prevent and resolve cases of missing and abducted children.

We also have our missing children program. I remember that from my days as parliamentary secretary at then Revenue Canada.

The partners in this program, the RCMP, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Canada, as well as the Montreal urban community police, are there to help Canadians in this very trying time period whenever a child has been child separated from their parent. If we can assist, we do a service to everyone involved.

We will evaluate the motion of hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade back in 1998 drafted a report called “International Child Abduction: Issues for Reform”. Those initiatives demonstrated the longstanding commitment by the Government of Canada to seek methods of preventing international child abduction where possible and to find the remedies when abductions occurred.

A manual for parents on international child abduction was prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs. That can be obtained through members of parliament. It is an effective tool in assisting parents to understand the processes and options available to them when a child is abducted by another parent, which sadly occurs more than we would like it to.

The manual also serves as an important preventive tool which alerts parents to the causes of parental child abduction and the steps they can take to protect the children involved.

The federal Departments of Justice and Foreign Affairs are working in collaboration with the federal central authority and with provincial and territorial central authorities to examine even better ways of collecting national statistics on international child abduction cases that are managed under the Hague Convention.

At this year's our missing children conference, which is being organized by the department of immigration and brings together all the key players in the area of missing and abducted children, sessions will be devoted to international child abduction and to reporting any new initiatives under way to improve the operation of the convention, both here and abroad.

We also have to deal with those countries that currently do not perform as well as we would wish under the Hague Convention. For the sake of Canadian children, we must encourage all countries to re-examine their priorities with a view to improving the operation of the Hague Convention in their own respective jurisdictions.

The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice will continue to raise with other countries problems encountered with the operation and the implementation of the Hague Convention. Through policy and operational linkages previously established, particularly between the provincial and territorial central authorities and the relevant federal departments, specific problems being encountered in other countries can quickly be identified and raised in appropriate ways through our consular and diplomatic networks. This is work that the government intends to intensify.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an effective instrument that addresses only one of a multitude of issues that often prevail in international child abduction cases. It attempts to deal with and provide guidance on one of the most complex and emotional issues that we, whether as parents, lawmakers or interested individuals, may ever have to deal with; a cross-border child abduction. It assists in providing a framework for proceeding when our family ties are under severe stress or disintegrate to the point that the children disappear.

The underlying principle of the Hague Convention is to respond in a way that protects the best interests of the affected children. Canada is committed to this principle and also committed to making it work, even when family disputes cross international borders and those situations have internally broken down families to the point where the abduction has taken place.

This is a non-partisan issue. It is an issue that can grip the hearts and intellects of all members in the Chamber. I hope we can work together to advance the cause before us to all our benefit.

[Foreign Affairs, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for over the past 10 years there has been terrible conflict in Sierra Leone. At least two dozen individuals have been identified for potential prosecution for war crimes in the region.

Could the foreign affairs minister tell us what Canada's position is with respect to the special court that is being set up by the United Nations in Sierra Leone.

[The Environment, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians value the wonderful diversity of plants and animals found across the many different regions of our country.

On April 19 the Government of Canada continued its efforts to protect biodiversity by signing the Cartagena protocol to the United Nations convention on biological diversity. The protocol, also known as the biosafety protocol, will protect natural biodiversity by regulating the trade of living, genetically modified plants, animals and micro-organisms.

Canada was one of the first countries to ratify the convention on biological diversity and has also been an active and committed participant in the negotiations on the protocol for biosafety. The protocol represents another solid step in moving toward the protection of our country's biodiversity.

As well, I hope and believe that the new species at risk legislation will go further to enhance what we already have in the country. I urge movement on this particular bill in a fashion that will do justice to the interests of—

[Tobacco Consumption, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am now speaking the second official language.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, the government announced a strategy to reduce tobacco consumption and increase taxes to deter contraband.

There is a fivefold increase in the financing. Would the minister tell us what programs that money will finance?