Chris Axworthy

[Customs Tariff, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the Bloc for his question.

Admittedly, we have international obligations and we must respond to those international treaties and implement them once we have signed them. That does not mean that we in the New Democratic Party have to be happy about it or should support that requirement. Not being supportive of the arrangements which formed the basis of Bill C-11 certainly provides adequate reasons to be opposed to Bill C-11.

Bill C-11 provides some benefits to business and that is indisputable and business as a whole supports the provisions. That does not mean that the whole trend that Canada has embarked upon since 1988 with the signing of bilateral, trilateral and other deals which give up Canadian sovereignty even more than has been taken away by the globalization of world economies, is a good or desirable thing and it will never be something that the New Democratic Party supports.

[Customs Tariff, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, those western companies are not here but I am happy to make a brief comment. Our premier was part of the team Canada visits. We have yet to see great fruit bearing from the visits, but I support the Prime Minister and the premiers in their efforts to expand trade around the world. There are few who would argue that we should not expand trade and our exports.

A country like Canada will only survive, will only thrive, if we have healthy exporting markets and an environment within Canada which encourages businesses to respond to those markets.

The member picked up on the point I was raising. With the agreements made first with the United States and then with Mexico, Canada's trade is focused on one market. Surely nobody would regard that as good. Nobody would regard our increased focus on trade with the United States as good. One of the reasons that focus has taken place is precisely because of the free trade agreements that have been negotiated.

There were efforts by earlier Liberal prime ministers to open up trade much more with Europe, a much bigger market than that of the United States, a market that is becoming bigger and bigger.

Those efforts did not take us very far. We did not diversify back in the eighties to other markets, but we were beginning to export more to other countries than the United States slowly but surely through the eighties and prior to the free trade agreements being signed.

Since those agreements have been signed the focus has become evermore dependent on one market. I merely wanted to reiterate that. In the process I can certainly refer to the many meetings I have had with exporting companies in my province and in other provinces that are doing very well at the present time, certainly those in my province.

Recently the Globe and Mail wrote about the western economies having reached full employment. They must be doing something right.

The New Democratic Government of Saskatchewan has an effective approach to business and job creation. It has consistently had the lowest unemployment rate in the country over the last two years. It leads the country in economic indicators. It must be doing something right. That approach is one of partnership with business, labour, government, aboriginal peoples and the communities as a whole to represent and develop an economy which supports all people of Saskatchewan. It is a diversified economy and is becoming ever more diversified unlike the Canadian economy.

I just wanted to make that point. I will pass on to western exporting corporations the good wishes of the member opposite.

[Customs Tariff, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to debate Bill C-11 and to be the representative of the only party which is taking a pro-Canadian view on these international trade matters.

As has been mentioned Bill C-11 is an enormously lengthy document. It sets out to do a number of things, not all of which are terrible. Nonetheless it is a continuation of the process of implementing what has been disastrous free trade deals signed by Canada, particularly disastrous because they signed away things that never needed to be signed away.

Among other things Bill C-11 attempts to simplify customs tariff and rationalize various provisions in the customs tariff as well as delete provisions that are no longer relevant. There are also rate reductions on a wide range of goods, mostly on manufacturing inputs, an elimination of a large number of tariff codes and regulations, a rounding down of decimal rates, and the elimination of most rates that fall below 2%.

The bill is supported by most members of Canada's business community because it will reduce their costs. It will in part implement the free trade agreements, in particular NAFTA.

We in the New Democratic Party remain alone in being opposed to the terms of free trade agreements. That is not to say that we are opposed to trade or opposed to fair trade. I come from the province of Saskatchewan which trades more than any other province in the country. Canada trades more than any other country by various different measurements in terms of percentage of exports, GDP and so on.

Canada lives on trade; Saskatchewan lives on trade. The constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar live on trade. I am not opposed to trade, but I am opposed to unfair trade which encourages the continual control of our economy by the United States.

From what has taken place since the signing of the free trade agreement with the United States and then NAFTA with Mexico, we know that our trade focus has concentrated more and more on trade with the United States. We have not diversified our trade. Indeed we have become ever more dependent on one market, the United States.

No sensible business person, no sensible country, no sensible person would ever suggest that it is desirable to focus and be dependent on one market as a result of the many things that flowed from these trade deals. It is simply foolish. To be so dependent means that in the event of a downturn in the American economy we will follow suit. It also means we have lost much more control of our economy. We did not have much before, but we gave away much of it in these deals.

Had we been more international, had we been more open, had we been more external in our focus, we would have been able to diversify our trade more effectively to other markets around the world which are growing and in good shape.

That focus is not helping Canadians. We have an unemployment rate of around 9.9%, significantly higher than that of the United States. These deals have not brought us what first Conservative governments and then Liberal governments promised they would bring.

As I mentioned, the New Democratic Party remains the only party opposed to these deals. The Liberal Party was strongly opposed to the free trade agreement when in opposition but when it became government—and you will remember this, Mr. Speaker, because you were part of that transition—the Liberal Party became the main flag bearer for free trade agreements. The Prime Minister takes some pride in being described as being the main flag bearer for the free trade arrangements in North America and further afield in South America also.

It was an amazing transformation as the Liberal Party moved from opposition benches to government benches and began to listen more and more to those in the business community and less and less to ordinary Canadians struggling to make ends meet.

I, my party, my province and I think all Canadians support a focus on trade in an effort to ensure we create a vibrant and dynamic economy, one which provides decent jobs for those who need them. These deals have not done that. This simplified customs tariff, which is merely a part of the whole process, will not do that either.

It is time the government spoke up on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of a trade policy and on behalf of an economic policy that works for Canadians and not just for those who are wealthy, those who are privileged and those who control a large measure of our economy, most of whom are not Canadians but from elsewhere.

In closing, I reiterate my and my party's opposition to Bill C-11 and to the whole context within which the bill is presented, the context of free trade agreements in which Canada gave up so much of its sovereignty for so little.

[Income Tax Act, November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-223 moved by the member for Portage—Lisgar which sets out to provide mortgage interest tax reliefs to first time home buyers, up to a maximum of $100,000.

It is important that we all recognize the importance of encouraging home ownership. We know that not only a house but a home is an important part of how we provide a good start for our kids and for our families in general. We all share in the concern and the concept that we need to do everything we can to encourage home ownership.

The question is how we go about doing this, in a fair, equitable and affordable way. It is not surprising that the Reform Party would take an issue of some complexity and present a simplistic and unworkable solution to it.

The Reform Party constantly sees complex things as simple. In fact, it consider everything to be simple. Some things are not quite as simple as they appear. Some things require more sophisticated responses than that put forward.

We need to ensure that families can find affordable and good quality homes. The question is how to do that. We know that over the years one of the main disincentives, especially to young families trying to afford homes, has been a high interest rate policy. We now find this reduced. Consequently one of the pressures on home ownership has been reduced.

Let us talk about what this bill does or perhaps what it does not do. First, it does not recognize regional disparities across the country. A $100,000 home in one part of the country may be a mansion whereas in another part of the country may not be much of a house at all. Why treat those who in one part of the country can buy a huge home for $100,000 the same as those who cannot find a very large place in a more expensive community? To treat different circumstances the same way is simplistic and simply will not work.

What about the way in which the bill works? The Reform Party would like to suggest that this is not terribly expensive, that it will encourage growth in the home building market. No doubt it will. We need to cost these issues out. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, this measure would cost $3 billion a year.

As he indicated, and even the Reform Party must know, that money has to come from somewhere. It would come from taxes paid by those who are not covered by this benefit, and I suppose those who are covered by the benefit might have to pay taxes on other things in order to make up that $3 billion difference, or a reduction in services provided to society as a whole through government programs.

That is money provided then by those who do not benefit from this particular provision. I ask why is it fair, why is it acceptable, why is it desirable to have those who cannot afford to have a home subsidize those who can. When was that fair? When was that acceptable? It is clearly simplistic, but when was it acceptable?

What would happen if mortgage rates increased? That is not beyond the realm of possibility. Then the cost would increase even further.

The point has been made that there is no horizontal equity here. What about the person who bought a house some time before 1994 who is struggling to keep that home together and provide a good family life for their children? They will not benefit from this program, even though they may live right next door to somebody who will. One family will benefit to the extent perhaps of $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 a year in mortgage payment tax credits, tax reductions or tax expenses, whereas the family next door will not. That seems to me to be not only patently unfair but patently absurd as well.

We have a situation which is not fair across groups. It is not fair across families in similar circumstances and it represents a significant tax break to some Canadians who are rather better off than others. We have to ask where would that money come from and how much is involved.

The member who proposed the bill mentioned the United States situation. Some mention has been made of capital gains on principal residences in the United States as a part of that total tax package. I wonder whether the Reform Party through this bill is suggesting that indeed we should have capital gains taxes on principal residences because I am sure Canadians would be interested to learn that.

It is important to recognize the validity of encouraging home ownership. We need to do that, but we need to do it in a fair, equitable and relatively inexpensive way. This bill is an expensive and unfair way and as a result I think will not see the light of day.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss Bill C-16 and to express the views of the New Democratic Party.

I would like to echo some of the comments which have been made to date about the haste with which this bill is being pushed through the House of Commons. I will speak to some specific concerns about that in a moment, but this is not a very effective way to achieve law reform and, in particular, criminal law reform because of the concerns Canadians have, quite rightly, of their sense of security in their homes and in their communities.

I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for setting out clearly the provisions of Bill C-16. Those who were watching and those who will read the proceedings will not be left in any doubt exactly what the government is attempting to do.

The bill is a response to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Feeney case. The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would enable the police to obtain a warrant from a judge to enter a private home to arrest or apprehend a person. Also the legislation is intended to clarify that authorization from a judge is not needed in urgent circumstances where it is not practical to obtain a warrant.

In the Feeney case the Supreme Court ruled that in order to protect the privacy rights of Canadians under the charter, police must obtain a warrant before they enter a private home to arrest or apprehend someone. Of course, the ruling caused concern among the police across Canada and victims' organizations, concerns that perhaps public safety was being put at risk in certain circumstances as a consequence of the delay which was being suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada in order to obtain a warrant to enter the premises.

Considerable concerns were voiced in the law enforcement community across Canada, as well as by the many Canadians who are concerned about their security.

Generally, police officers obtain a warrant authorizing entry before they enter a private home to arrest someone. This legislation is intended to provide procedures to obtain such a warrant. It also allows the police to obtain a warrant by telephone or by any other means of telecommunication where presenting themselves to a judge is simply not possible.

It also makes the obtaining of warrants more straightforward, somewhat easier, and will be particularly useful, the government contends, for those working in remote locations or when it would not be possible to both monitor a suspect and appear before a judge to apply for the warrant to enter.

It will not have any effect on the common law which permits police and other peace officers to enter private homes to arrest a suspect when they are in hot pursuit of that suspect.

The question that arises is whether this legislation strikes a reasonable balance between the powers available to the police to protect our safety and the privacy rights of Canadians. The government, of course, contends that it does. We will have to wait to see what the Supreme Court of Canada decides on that particular matter.

It does pose another problem, which is generated by rushing this legislation through the House with insufficient time to consider these provisions.

I was interested to hear the Reform Party praise the attorney general of British Columbia who led the way in successfully applying to the Supreme Court of Canada to suspend its judgment for six months so that Parliament could respond and so that the uncertainty within the law enforcement community could be addressed. It is a rare day indeed when the Reform Party commends the attorney general of British Columbia for anything. I want to note the Reform Party did that.

This legislation is before us as a result of the Feeney case. It is close to the deadline. I believe November 22 is the deadline for this legislation to be implemented in accordance with the recommendation of the Supreme Court of Canada. As has been said many times, it does not give members very much time or opportunity to look into the specific provisions to see whether the legislation answers the concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Canada. It gives little time to look into whether this legislation is a response which will enable the police forces across Canada to do their jobs effectively.

We know that from time to time the Supreme Court of Canada has taken the point that the old way of doing things prior to the charter is no longer appropriate, bearing in mind the contents of the charter. This is one of those examples. It serves to remind us that it would be better if the government took a more holistic and complete approach to criminal law reform. It could look through a number of the issues which the supreme court and other courts have raised with regard to the application of criminal law in the light of the charter of rights and freedoms.

The police association has raised some concerns about this legislation, among others. These concerns could have been dealt with had we had more time to consider the provisions of the legislation in depth. The police have concerns with regard to the statutory authorization of entry at the time of the warrant issue. As we know, it is not always possible to be fully cognizant of where somebody who has escaped from prison or a halfway house might be. Yet it is clearly in the public interest that such persons be apprehended as quickly as possible. It deserves to be considered in more detail how this legislation affects that possibility.

We also know there is some concern about failure in the legislation to define exigent circumstances. When is it appropriate for the police to respond in the old way based upon an urgent situation in which they have no choice but to go and apprehend immediately? With uncertainty, the police will not always know what their responsibilities are or how best to protect the public safety in certain circumstances.

It might also have been better to have included in the preamble provisions which would make it clear the government's response should there be a section 1 argument under the charter presented to the legislation.

There are some other provisions that could have been addressed in a more comprehensive review of the legislation in committee if this bill had been put forward a little earlier than it has been. Clearly we have to respond to the Feeney case and the Supreme Court of Canada's suggestions that Parliament act. The government has acted with Bill C-16. As has been mentioned, there is all party support for this response to the supreme court.

I merely want to point out that if we had this legislation in a more timely way, we could have had more opportunity to resolve whatever potential difficulties there might be. Those concerns have been voiced by police associations across the country which have the responsibility for enforcing this legislation and for protecting Canadians in their homes and in their communities.

There are aspects of criminal law reform that can only be done in a piecemeal way. We do not have a full view of the future. We cannot guess what the Supreme Court of Canada might consider needs to be addressed as a result of the charter affecting our criminal law.

As Canadians we deserve a more cohesive, more fully informed, more forward looking approach to criminal law reform than we have had in either this or the last Parliament. It is possible to predict in many respects, and it is possible to see what the Supreme Court of Canada has said we should do.

It would be better for all of us if the government took criminal law reform more seriously and did it in a more complete way.

That being said, we will support this legislation.

[Gasoline Prices, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, gas company profits are up. The profits of Petro-Canada and Imperial Oil tripled in the last quarter by 103%, Shell Canada by 129%, Suncor by 152%.

As we know, Canadians have been concerned about high gas prices at the pumps for some time. We know that when prices of gas go up it affects negatively the whole economy. The federal government's position and that of its oil company friends is “Don't worry, be happy”.

Canadians are not happy when they are being gouged at the pumps. At this time of trick or treat Canadians are being tricked at the pumps by high prices while oil companies have been treating themselves to record profits.

When will the government stand up for Canadians instead of oil companies who contribute so much to Liberal Party election campaigns?

[Rcmp Investigations, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board indicated that they knew what the RCMP was doing.

Why did the Liberal government call in the RCMP on this investigation? Why did it not call in the Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police, which should be looking into this question? Is it because the government knew it would get better, more regular reports from the RCMP than it would from the sûreté?

[Rcmp Investigations, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When did the arm's length relationship with the RCMP and the government end?

[Rcmp Investigations, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about Liberal influence peddling over the last few days. You know what they say, if you throw a rock and you hear a squeal you have probably hit a pig. And we have heard a lot of squealing on this—

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members will vote yes.