Aileen Carroll

[Foreign Affairs, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada shares the concerns of the hon. member, very much so.

We remain very concerned about the situation there. We are doing our utmost within the Commonwealth. We have been very active in other multilateral forums. The Minister of Foreign Affairs operates with bilaterals where he can. It is simply not something that there is an easy solution to. Speaking out and condemning accomplishes very little. Actions accomplish more, and this government is engaged on Zimbabwe.

[Foreign Affairs, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised this question before, as have others. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has responded by advising that Ambassador Gagliano is the ambassador of Canada to the Kingdom of Denmark. He will continue to fulfill that function.

[Churchill Women's Institute, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Thursday, June 12, the Churchill Women's Institute celebrated their 100th anniversary. Adelaide Hoodless founded the first branch of the Women's Institute in southern Ontario in 1897.

The Women's Institute is now an international organization. Its motto, “For Home and Country”, provides an educational forum for women with an emphasis on civics.

This is a time when government and organizations throughout North America are searching for ways to get people together to discuss means of enhancing the quality of life in their communities, to increase opportunities to bring people together for companionship and support and social cohesion. This is one of the primary ways to prevent isolation and fragmentation.

I wish to congratulate the Churchill Women's Institute for 100 years of strength and leadership.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I just finished debating this subject. I advised that the latest investment we have made of $3 billion is toward a 10 year federal commitment. This bring the government's commitment to community infrastructure to more than $12 billion since 1993.

The municipalities are aware of what has been committed. There is therein a stability and not the fluctuation that might occur with the designation from the fuel tax.

As far as questions that hon. members wish to have directed to the member for LaSalle—Émard, I am unable to answer on his behalf. I would say that when the member for LaSalle—Émard is in the House that those questions be directed to him. I am sure he would be more than delighted to answer the member.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I did not know I would be asked two questions and I did not write them down, but I believe I understood the first one in that there are critics of the 2.5% amount coming from the taxes assigned to roads. I just finished discussing this. I said that there was no conviction on the part of the government that a designated portion would meet the needs in a fluctuating situation. As such, tying it down further or assigning another specific amount will not meet the demands.

The ability to be flexible, of money flowing into a general revenue pot from which an assignation due to priorities can be made, is a far better method of governing, particularly in our fiscal environment.

As to the remarks of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I am certainly very keen and frequently listen and pay much attention to the suggestions that he and other candidates put forward for discussion. It is one method he is considering. He comes from a strong background as the former finance minister. I am sure he will engage the country in discussions such as this.

As I speak today, the position of the government is as I have described. It is from that position that I respond to the hon. member.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely grateful to the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his motion today. I am grateful for three reasons.

First, he is asking the House to address an extremely important issue. The state of this country's infrastructure is critical to the future of all Canadians. It affects our ability to work effectively, grow economically, compete internationally, and to live comfortably and safely. Whether we are speaking of the concrete that makes our roads and streets, or the glass fibre cables that connect our information highways, we are speaking of the infrastructure that helps Canada work. Anything that is that important to this country is extremely important to the government.

The second reason I am grateful to my hon. friend is that his motion makes a proposal that is not uncommon these days. More and more we are hearing suggestions for “simple solutions to the challenges facing infrastructure in Canada today”, suggestions such as the federal government should give up tax revenues to the provinces and cities, or the federal government should make more tax room for the provinces and cities. By addressing this suggestion today, we are very helpfully addressing an issue that has been on the minds of many commentators and pundits across the country.

The third reason I am grateful for this motion is it gives me the opportunity to explain two things. It allows me to explain why the hon. member's suggestion is not workable and it allows me to explain why the hon. member's suggestion is not necessary. These two points will comprise the substance of my remarks this afternoon.

First, why would it not work? Let us quickly review the motion. It suggests that the government:

--reduce federal gasoline taxes conditional on an agreement with provinces that, with the creation of this tax room, provinces would introduce a special tax to fund infrastructure in provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

If we were to read this motion carefully, we would realize that what we have here is no “simple solution” to the challenges of the infrastructure or any other problems. In fact, what we have here is a solution so complex and so intricate that to seriously suggest it is tantamount to suggesting a renegotiation of the Constitution.

Under the Constitution municipal revenue raising powers are derived from provincial powers. The provinces have access to all the major tax bases, including fuel taxes. The motion even acknowledges this provincial authority. Remember that it says “conditional on an agreement with the provinces”.

But let us look at what the motion does not say. Does it say by what proportion the federal government ought to reduce gasoline taxes? No. Does it say what proportion of this new kind of tax room would be allocated to provincial and municipal infrastructure expenditures? No. Does it envisage different needs in urban and rural areas? No.

How are we supposed to obtain the answers to these questions? I guess we will have to negotiate.

Clearly it is true that Ottawa and the provinces can come to agreement. They have done so in the past and they will do so again in the future, but to get 10 provincial leaders in the same room to agree on the same rate of tax to be spent on the same types of infrastructure programs, provincial and municipal, rural and urban, would be an astounding accomplishment. Add to these negotiations the voices and views of municipal leaders from across the country and suddenly the chances of finding a satisfactory resolution would surpass the astounding and transform into the miraculous.

There is, I dare say, a greater chance of Canada's parties of the right uniting under one banner than there is of this motion ever becoming a reality. That is how unrealistic it is. There is another reason the motion is unworkable and that has to do with the principles of good management and common sense, two key principles that guide the government. One of the hallmarks of the government has been its ability to put this country's fiscal house in order while at the same time targeting spending to the priority of Canadians.

This motion would help tie the hands of the government. Excise taxes on gasoline are an important source of general revenue for the government. Federal taxes, including gasoline taxes, go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

This fund finances a wide range of federal programs which benefit all Canadians, and which are important to them, such as old age pensions, national defence and transfer payments to provinces for health care and post-secondary education.

This motion essentially amounts to establishing a designated fund, something the government has always opposed.

Dedicating tax revenues to specific programs limits the flexibility of governments to respond to changing priorities and can result in some programs being overfunded while others suffer shortfalls. As well, making budgetary and long term investment decisions under a program funded by earmarked taxes is difficult as revenues from these taxes fluctuate from year to year.

The third reason for avoiding earmarking revenues to certain activities is that all potential spending initiatives, including infrastructure, should be evaluated independently of tax sources and examined as competing priorities.

Indeed, what if we did come to an agreement with the provinces, an agreement which I assure the House would only be realized after a good deal of blood, sweat and tears? What if, having lived with the agreement for a few years, we realized it was not enough or, what if, after 10 years or so we found that our provincial infrastructure funding pools were in surplus while other priorities were wanting? Would we ask the provinces to go back to the table for yet another round of negotiations? Such are the perils of earmarked funds such as the motion suggests.

As hon. members know, there are many demands today on government's scarce resources. Because of this it is important that the government remain firmly committed to sound financial management.

The government intends to continue to follow a balanced approach to managing the wide range of priorities and pressures it faces. I assure the House that a wide range of priorities includes infrastructure. Indeed, it is my confidence in the government's commitment to infrastructure which brings me to my second and final argument that the motion is not necessary.

Earlier this year the Government of Canada confirmed its long term commitment toward infrastructure by announcing a $3 billion investment in budget 2003. This $3 billion represents a significant down payment for the 10 year federal commitment toward infrastructure. This latest investment brings the Government of Canada's commitment to community infrastructure to more than $12 billion since 1993. This in turn is generating more than $30 billion in total infrastructure investments.

Since 2000 the Government of Canada has set up numerous infrastructure initiatives, each targeting different types of projects in different types of communities.

For example, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund targets large-scale projects, while the Canada Infrastructure Works Program supports upgrading of services in communities across the country. Other infrastructure programs concentrate on roads, affordable housing, green spaces and cultural areas, as well as the crucial Border Infrastructure Fund.

Thanks to these investments, the federal government is already meeting needs. These expenditures are predictable and stable; they are not subject to the ups and downs of the economy or the market.

These expenditures will improve the quality of life of all Canadians and will stimulate economic growth in all communities in the country, by ensuring that we have top-notch public infrastructure.

Our friends opposite would suggest that by merely striking an agreement and throwing some tax dollars at a problem, we can find a solution. The government knows this suggestion is neither simple nor workable.

This is a problem that needs more than money; it needs vision, the kind of vision the government offers. It needs an integrated approach to economic, social and environmental issues that is key to the long term sustainability of our cities. It needs solutions that will be found in the partnerships of federal, provincial and municipal governments.

The government does not pretend to have all the answers, but I can say that none of the answers to the challenges facing Canada's infrastructure are found in the motion. Therefore, it is with respect that I tell hon. members that I am unable support it.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond to all of the hon. member's concerns in the space of one minute, but I want to refer to a comment that he made at the outset about children being found in Iraq with congenital defects as a result of these weapons.

I draw the member's attention to the fact that there is no empirical data that exists to support that. There has been no peer review. I would be suspicious of such sources which indeed were the same sources that claimed, before the war--as the bodies of dead children were paraded--that these children had starved to death due to the embargo by the United Nations. We now know, and it has been shown, that the children had died in hospital and this despicable regime used them and paraded them to create such a charade.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister clearly expressed the government's view when he spoke in the House on this issue in March 20. He said:

--we are confident that the Americans will conduct themselves in accordance with the rules of humanitarian war to which they are obliged under the Geneva conventions and other conventions. Our American allies have always observed the rules of law and the rules of international law with respect to conflict and we expect that they would do so in this case as well.

In the aftermath of the conflict, this remains the government's view. Depleted uranium is even less radioactive than natural uranium. Although we are a large producer and processor of natural uranium, which we only use and export for peaceful purposes, Canada does not produce depleted uranium, which is the product of the enrichment of natural uranium.

In view of its low level of radioactivity, the main concerns about depleted uranium munitions are about its chemical toxicity and the affect of this on human health and the environment. The relationship between the use of such munitions and subsequent health problems experienced by veterans in the first gulf war and the Balkans, and civilians in both regions have been extensively studied by Canada, the U.S.A., the U.K., various other western countries, the World Health Organization, NATO, the UN environment program, and indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency. None of these expert studies have to date found any conclusive linkage between the use of depleted uranium munitions and health problems experienced by veterans or civilians in the areas where they were used.

Indeed, since the hon. member initially asked his question, the latest findings on the use of depleted uranium munitions in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the mid-1990s have been released by the UN environment program. Although it could still find traces of depleted uranium in the dust and even in ground water where it was used, the UNEP concluded the level of contamination was very low and did not present immediate radioactive or toxic risks for the environment or human health.

Although the Canadian Forces stopped using depleted uranium munitions several years ago, it is still used by the armed forces of the U.S.A., the United Kingdom and others. The use of depleted uranium munitions is not prohibited or restricted under the 1980 UN convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons and related protocols, nor is it otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law. This is because it is not deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects. I would emphasize as well that it has not been deemed a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations, as some concerned Canadians have erroneously asserted.

In view of the foregoing, and as indicated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, there is no justification, nor would it be appropriate in the current circumstances for Canada to call upon the U.S.A. and the U.K. to renounce their use of depleted uranium.

On the broader issue of cluster bombs, it should be noted that cluster munitions are considered throughout the international community to be legitimate and lawful weapons when they are used against military targets. Indeed, the international committee of the Red Cross has not called for a prohibition on these weapons and considers them as legitimate when used in accordance with existing international humanitarian law.

Our forces tell us that these can be very important munitions in specific circumstances and the removal of this capability could have a detrimental effect requiring the use of a less appropriate weapons system which could cause greater risk of collateral damage in order to achieve the same military advantage.

I would like to inform the House that the international community is undertaking steps to address the key problems associated with this type of weapon, that is, the humanitarian impact presented when the unexploded munitions remain on the battlefield after the end of active hostilities presenting a threat to civilian populations who may unwittingly detonate them causing injury and death.

However, this problem is not unique to cluster bombs and all types of weapons can malfunction or become duds. Canada has been playing a leading role in the processes leading up to these negotiations and will continue to do so. The U.S. is working closely with Canada in this regard.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the recent conflict in Iraq, I wish to respond to the hon. member's concerns about cluster bombs and the military use of depleted uranium.

Minister Graham clearly expressed the government's view when he spoke in the House--

[Government Contracts, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear comments here today on the possibility that Ambassador Gagliano will be moved to the Vatican. That is media speculation and just that, media speculation.