Aileen Carroll

[YMCA Peace Week, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, November 17 to 23 marks YMCA World Peace Week. Last week in my riding of Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford I had the honour of receiving the 2002 YMCA Peace Symbol pin presented to me by Mr. George Jonescu, president of Orbit Design Services.

The YMCA commissioned the Barrie firm to design the pin, which was manufactured in Schomberg. Orbit's principal designer, Ms. Sue Beard, as well as Tracy Hansen from the Barrie YMCA were present at this special occasion.

YMCA Peace Week originated in 1984 when YMCA Canada decided to add an entire week of peace-related activities to Peace Day. During this week local associations are encouraged to promote peace from a personal, community and international level.

I would like to congratulate the Barrie YMCA and Orbit Design Services for their dedication to such a worthwhile event.

[Border Security, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear and have been responded to very clearly in return that Canadians' place of birth would not trigger NSEERS. Canadians have the option, if they choose, not to have their place of birth put on their passports, but if they do so they risk not being admitted to certain countries that will not allow this.

We are very confident that we are working closely with our American allies in this regard. We have asked and they have listened.

[Border Security, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the recent meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Minister of Foreign Affairs consisted of very successful discussions on a number of issues.

In particular as it relates to this member's question, the NSEERS program was discussed. We were assured by the secretary of state that no one with a Canadian passport would have that program triggered because of their place of birth. We are confident that the secretary of state is very much on task with that.

[Border Security, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all concerned about some of the stress and lines that have been shown at the border. However, I think it is very important not to be overly negative.

Yesterday Mr. Ashcroft confirmed exactly what we wanted to hear: the country of birth on our passports will not trigger NSEERS. One should really have some confidence in the expertise of our department and know that we will be monitoring carefully any special incidents. If any of those incidents occur we look forward to them being reported, and we will respond, as we should.

[Iraq, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada welcomes the success at the United Nations this morning as the Security Council resolution 1441 on Iraq was passed. It contains all that we felt was vital. It makes very clear that the onus is on Iraq to comply with Dr. Blix's team and to be very open and transparent on what is or is not in Iraq.

Any indication to the contrary will return the issue to the United Nations Security Council, and that is just the way it should be.

[Foreign Affairs, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the question as asked leaves me a little perplexed. I believe at this time we have not changed in any way our approach to the issues that are being discussed as a result of his article and his views expressed in the article.

We, too, as a sovereign country, are asking for visas in certain cases, even from other countries, with regard to landed immigrants, even when those countries are Commonwealth members. Like the United States, we have our rules and we attempt not--

[Foreign Affairs, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the question was asked, if only to convey what the minister has conveyed to the House. The minister was assured by what Mr. Ashcroft said yesterday in being advised yet again, pursuant to his own discussions, that the question of country of birth will not trigger NSEERS. What Mr. Ashcroft said yesterday confirms that is so.

We are pleased and we will continue to monitor, but that has settled and confirmed our concerns for the moment.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this area of Quebec and the adjacent American property is an area which in the past always had an easy and relaxed border. Unfortunately since September 11 there are few easy and relaxed borders.

I will say that we do appreciate very much the work that the hon. member is doing on this. Mr. Jalbert is receiving the services and the full support of our consular representative in Boston as well as the services of an American lawyer, but he must now make a decision with regard to the charges brought against him. We are not in a position to comment on the legal process underway.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for his work on this case.

Our colleague and members of Mr. Jalbert's family can rest assured that our consular representatives in the United States are taking this case very seriously and that all appropriate consular services will be offered to Mr. Jalbert. We will also continue to provide Mr. Jalbert with all the help he needs.

The authorization to allow foreigners or visitors into a country is the sole prerogative of that country alone. In Mr. Jalbert's case, the country in question is the United States. After September 11, the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States implemented the changes made in the American immigration legislation. That legislation was strengthened and is being rigorously enforced.

Since September 11, the Canadian government also made changes in its own legislation and its personnel at the border. We also want to strengthen security at the Canada-United States border, while ensuring the free circulation of goods and people.

We know that the new security measures put in place by our two governments closely affect residents of communities located along the Canada-U.S. border. In several places, it is no longer possible to cross the border as easily as it used to be. This is a reality that we must adjust to, regardless of where we live, whether it is Windsor, in Ontario, Coutts, in Alberta, or Pohénégamook, in Quebec.

However, rest assured that we continue to work in close cooperation with the U.S. authorities to establish an intelligent border for the 21st century, an effective and safe border, a border that is closed to terrorism, but open to trade.

Over 300,000 persons cross the Canada-U.S. border daily. In the vast majority of cases, these crossings do not pose any problems. Unfortunately, in some cases, people are stopped by Canadian or American customs officials because they violated the laws of the country.

As for Mr. Jalbert, he was arrested, according to U.S. authorities, because he crossed the border without the necessary authorization. According to the U.S. customs officer, he was also in possession of a firearm. Moreover, U.S. authorities said that Mr. Jalbert did not legally have the right to enter the United States, because of his criminal record. Like all Canadian citizens, Mr. Jalbert has the right to see a consular official while he is jailed abroad.

On November 1, a consular officer from the Canadian consulate general in Boston travelled to Bangor to meet with Mr. Jalbert and his lawyer. Our consular officer was able to talk with Mr. Jalbert for close to 30 minutes. She explained the charges against Mr. Jalbert. She also offered her complete support if Mr. Jalbert and his lawyer needed her help.

However, the consular officer cannot put an end to the legal proceedings. Her role is to ensure that Canadian nationals imprisoned abroad are treated properly.

It is up to Mr. Jalbert and to his lawyer to take the necessary decisions about the charges laid against him.

Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Mr. Jalbert. They can rest assured that Mr. Jalbert is benefiting from the complete support and services of our consulate general in Boston. We hope that this issue will be positively resolved as soon as possible. Obviously, the Government of Canada intends to do everything it can to help Mr. Jalbert.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the hon. member's question regarding the application of the GST to the Ontario debt requirement charge.

Let me begin by saying that the GST is calculated on the final amount charged for supply of a good or service. That final amount includes most federal and provincial levies, duties and fees imposed upon the supplier or the recipient of the supply. The debt retirement charge is part of the total price paid by consumers for electricity. As indicated in a Government of Ontario press release of October 17, this charge replaces debt servicing costs previously included in electricity bills as part of the price paid by consumers. In other words, consumers have historically paid GST on hydro rates. That included a component used to service Ontario's debt. The amount was not previously shown separately on the electricity bill.

The fact that electricity bills in Ontario now include an explicit charge in respect of debt servicing by the province does not affect the application of the GST. The general rule that was adopted at the inception of the GST is that any federal, provincial or municipal levy in respect of a good or service is included in the value on which the GST applies unless a specific exception is made for it. The notable exceptions are the general sales taxes of the provinces, which since the inception of the GST obviously have not been part of the GST base.

In accordance with this approach, the GST currently applies to all federal excise taxes and duties. The GST also applies to the air traveller's security charge. Some examples of provincial and municipal taxes and fees included in the GST base are gasoline and tobacco taxes, liquor taxes or mark-ups, environmental levies such as the tire taxes, parking fees, and certain utility surcharges. This approach therefore maintains the broad base and the fairness of the GST.

Finally, I would add that the Government of Ontario made the decision to charge Ontario electricity consumers for the servicing and repayment of the former Ontario Hydro debt through a charge applying to their consumption. The provincial government had every reason to expect that by adopting that particular approach GST would apply in the normal manner, consistent with the approach I outlined earlier. Had the province of Ontario decided to fund the servicing and repayment of the debt through general taxation revenue there would have been no application of GST, again consistent with the normal rules. Again, it is just the Ontario government not taking the route that was available to it.