Norman E. Doyle

[Kyoto Protocol, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we vote on the Kyoto protocol, an international effort to combat greenhouse gases and global warming.

Canadians want us to take action on global warming. However, Canada is a federal country and successful implementation of the Kyoto protocol depends heavily on provincial involvement. This requires painstaking consultations and negotiations between the federal government and the provinces, just like the previous PC government did successfully on the implementation of an international acid rain treaty.

Instead, in an attempt to leave a legacy, the Prime Minister dropped a fast track Kyoto ratification process on the provinces without warning, and a federal-provincial brawl has ensued.

Kyoto is supposed to be the solution to a problem, but with the way the government has handled the matter, it has become the problem. As legacies go, Canada, Canadians and our planet deserve better.

[Fisheries, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today Newfoundland's political leaders, Premier Roger Grimes, opposition leader Danny Williams and NDP leader Jack Harris, from the provincial House of Assembly, are in town to meet with MPs and senators from Newfoundland and Labrador.

These provincial leaders are meeting with us to talk about the possible closure of the remaining northern cod fishery and all the social and economic implications arising from that kind of a catastrophe.

One of the reasons for the trouble in our fishery is the federal government's refusal to take custodial management of our continental shelf outside the 200 mile limit and thereby put a stop to rampant foreign overfishing.

The time has come for the federal government to act on custodial management before we lose every fishery on our continental shelf.

[Lower Churchill Project, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is growing evidence, on a daily basis, that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Quebec may be close to signing the Lower Churchill deal, consisting of a 2,000 megawatt generating facility at Belle Island. This is a $4 billion project.

In spite of the fact that massive amounts of power will be developed, we are still faced with the prospect that no provision may be made to make power available for industrial development in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador because this power may be developed for export only.

If this indeed the case, then I would caution Premier Grimes to go slowly and listen attentively to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are saying that it is better to leave this project undeveloped for the time being than to make hasty decisions today that will be regretted for generations to come.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2002, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill S-2. I am making these comments on behalf of the member for Kings--Hants, who is the official critic in this area but cannot be in the chamber at the moment.

As we are all aware, the bill lets Canada ratify income tax treaties with Kuwait, Mongolia, the United Arab Emirates and Moldova. Canada did not previously have tax treaties with any of these states. It also ratifies treaties with Norway, Belgium and Italy and corrects errors in the English version of the treaties with Vietnam, Portugal and Senegal. These treaties set out a framework for taxes on investment income flowing between Canada and other countries. They provide mechanisms to avoid double taxation and prevent tax evasion.

Over the past several years, Canada has negotiated tax treaties with about 80 countries. These agreements deal with problems that arise when residents of one nation earn income in another country. They are based on the model double taxation convention prepared by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

A key problem that these treaties address is that of double taxation. That can occur when the same person or business pays comparable taxes in two or more states on the same taxable income for the same period of time. For example, double taxation would occur if a resident of Italy were taxed in both Canada and Italy on dividend income received from a Canadian company. Preventing double taxation helps facilitate investment.

To prevent double taxation, each treaty limits the application of each country's respective tax law and ensures that taxes paid in one country are recognized in the other country as well. Limits on withholding taxes in the country where the income is earned are established. An exemption is provided for certain income that would otherwise be taxed in the country where it is earned.

The treaties outline the maximum withholding taxes that may be charged on different forms of income, such as dividends, royalties and interest. These will vary by country. When the income is then received in Canada, double taxation is prevented by subtracting the tax already paid from what would otherwise be payable on that income.

The treaties also provide for measures to prevent double taxation of income earned in Canada by residents of the countries concerned.

Another problem addressed by tax treaties is that of tax evasion, whereby income earned abroad is not reported in Canada. To prevent tax evasion, the treaties provide for the exchange of information.

A further area that needs addressing is one that transcends fiscal, taxation and investment issues, and that is the very important area of human rights. Canada must ensure that the countries we have tax treaties with recognize the importance of human rights. Also, it must be more than a perfunctory recognition. It must be a real and cognizant recognition. If some of these countries have a checkered history of human rights, then the government should undertake all steps to ensure that the human rights record of the foreign signatory is improved.

That issue was studied recently by the foreign affairs and international trade department and it indeed has reported back on it. The specific issue is this: Should Canada enter into double taxation agreements with countries possessing poor human rights records? The response from the department is as follows:

The protections that a Double Taxation Agreement...can provide for Canadian businesses (e.g., transparency, rule of law, and greater predictability/stability) are consistent with Canada's policy of encouraging governance, democratic and human rights reforms wherever necessary. The increased trade and investment that may result from such agreements can lead to economic development (an important factor related to the promotion of human rights) and provide additional vehicles for promoting Canadian beliefs and values--central among which are the promotion and protection of human rights. We encourage and fully support ongoing Canadian private sector efforts to work with stakeholders such as local communities, NGOs and labour unions to develop and implement innovative environmentally and socially responsible business practices.

For these reasons we would have no concern in finalizing DTAs with the following countries: Belgium, Norway, Italy and the United Arab Emirates. In doing that we would make these comments.

The UAE has acceded only to the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination and the convention on the rights of the child. Canada is not aware of excessive human rights violations in the UAE. Canadian concerns include the general lack of transparency in judicial proceedings and the fact that there are no elections or legal political parties in the UAE.

Mongolia is a party to all six major human rights instruments. Canada is not aware of excessive human rights violations in Mongolia. We are, however, concerned about the weaknesses of the penal system and reported discrimination against women.

Moldova has acceded to all six major human rights instruments. Human rights are generally respected in Moldova, and the concerns that Canada notes have to do with the problematic administration of governance and justice. Complaints arise, of course, about the mistreatment of ethnic Albanians on the grounds that they harbour separatists and terrorists, but the government and the governing system understand the need for reform and seem to be making progress.

Kuwait has acceded to all six major human rights instruments. Canada is not aware of any excessive human rights violations in Kuwait. Canada remains concerned, though, about the denial of political rights for women.

Just because the various countries do not have any egregious human rights violations does not mean that the human rights records of the various countries could not be improved. For instance, in regard to Kuwait, how can the government talk about Kuwait's humanitarian record as no longer egregious if it still denies political rights for women, who make up about one-half of the population? In Canada would this not be seen as egregious human rights violations?

Furthermore, what is the difference between gender and race with respect to human rights? What if the same violations were being made in Kuwait or some other country that we have a tax treaty with and one-half of the population was denied political rights and they were black? Case in point, we do not have a treaty with Cuba. I assume this is for many reasons, but one could surmise that one of the reasons is that Cuba does not have a great human rights record.

My point in all of this is that the government must be satisfied that the human rights records of these countries are on a par with Canada's or must at least be seen to be improving. After all, these countries want investment from Canada. In return, it is high time that any of these human rights violations be rectified. This is one of the positive effects emanating from globalization.

Our concerns notwithstanding, we support the bill.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of my constituents in the St. John's area making the point that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Human Resources Development, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has spent five years and thousands of dollars trying to recover an overpayment of $1,368 from Mrs. Beryl Tucker, a St. John's widow with an annual income of $11,000.

The minister is appealing a Federal Court ruling and a review tribunal ruling that said the overpayment should be forgiven because Mrs. Tucker had received bad advice from the minister's officials and “relied on the erroneous advice to her detriment”.

Will the minister stop harassing this woman for the paltry sum of $1,368, a widow whose only crime was to follow the advice of the minister's officials?

[Canada Labour Code, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-224, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. The purpose of the enactment is to prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers.

I support the bill. I have looked at the whole bill. It is not lengthy or complicated. Clause 2 of the bill would replace subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code.

New subsection 94(2.1) says that an employer cannot directly or indirectly employ people to do the work of the people who are withdrawing their services. That sounds reasonable to me.

New subsection 94(2.2) would give an employer the right to take measures to avoid destruction of his property. That sounds reasonable as well.

New subsection 94(2.3) would limit the ability of the employer to abuse the rights he has been given under subsection 94(2.2). Again that sounds very reasonable.

New subsections 94(2.4), (2.5) and (2.6) would give the Minister of Labour the tools to investigate breaches of the act. That sounds reasonable again.

Finally, clause 3 of the bill would amend section 100 of the Canada Labour Code to provide a fine for the people found guilty of breaches of the act.

These are all reasonable clauses that should help employees and employers in their efforts to resolve differences in a very professional and rational manner.

As I said, I support the bill. I have long been a supporter of the fundamental right to strike. I have always been very reluctant to place any undue restrictions on an individual's right to strike. Bill C-224 is a way of making the right to strike more effective once a withdrawal of service becomes a reality.

All of us have seen many withdrawals of services in our lifetime. Some have been easygoing and friendly; others have become very loud and bitter. However in every case whenever replacement workers have been brought in, it has always made matters a whole lot worse. It has always raised the temperature of the people on the picket line. We all know what results when those things happen.

When people have been out on a dirty old picket line for days in the rain or snow, the sight of replacement workers being bused in is often too much for them to take. In that event we see that shouts replace dialogue and very often push comes to shove. Implementing Bill C-224 would reduce the acrimony and violence on the picket line.

Very often management will do as much as it can to replace workers who have gone out on strike. That is fair. Management is allowed to do that. It is allowed to keep the company operating if it can. However when the people in management start hiring people to help them, such as their friends, their neighbours and replacement workers, then we are talking about a different kettle of fish. This is where the acrimony and violence develops on picket lines.

A strike is about withdrawing one's services. It is not about having one's services replaced by people who have absolutely no right to be there.

We have to remember as well that life has to go on after the strike is over. Things get back to normal more quickly if there are no nasty incidents and no violence on the picket lines. Doing things professionally and rationally is in the best interests of both management and labour.

I support the bill. I hope it will help in reducing the incidence of violence and acrimony on the picket line.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, no. The very least the government could have done would have been to brief members on what effect this would have upon the disabled community.

The member for Churchill made a very good comment. We have to realize that the tax credit offsets only a very small portion of the costs that most individuals experience and it does not create tax fairness for people with disabilities.

I made the point a moment ago that tax credits probably do not benefit the majority of Canadians with disabilities because a lot of these people live in poverty and most of them do not have a taxable income. The member made a very good point.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking here about people who are self-reliant. We all agree that people who are not self-reliant should be encouraged to become self-reliant but this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about people who are genuinely disabled.

I would refer the hon. member once again to the review that was held by the parliamentary Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It held hearings last winter and issued its report, not on people who are self-reliant but on people who are genuinely disabled. I would imagine that the subcommittee had representation from all political parties. When it issued its report, it made it very clear that it was criticizing the CCRA for practices that were grossly inadequate for people with disabilities. It called for a complete overhaul of the disability tax credit program.

That indicates to me there is a problem in the system. The government itself created the problem. The subcommittee looked very closely at the issue and called upon the government to do something to help the disabled community, people who are legitimately disabled, not people who are self-reliant.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the motion put forward by the NDP. I am also very pleased to support my colleague who made a very compassionate and passionate speech on this issue.

As we are all very much aware, the motion calls upon the government to make changes in the eligibility requirements for the disability tax credit. It calls for changes that take account of the real life circumstances of people with disabilities, changes that are a little more humane and a little more compassionate in how the government approaches the disabled problem.

We would not be having this problem today if we had a government that was a little more humane and compassionate in its approach. One would think that a tax credit program designed to assist the disabled community would be the heart and soul of compassion and humanity. However, in the hands of the government, even a program designed to assist disabled people can become a very blunt instrument causing no end to grief. It can become an instrument that government dickers around with and causes an awful lot of problems for our disabled community.

Nearly a year ago my office and all members' offices were flooded with calls about the pending changes to the disability tax credit. Then the changes came and thousands of Canadians were notified that they no longer qualified for the disability tax credit. Imagine, as a member pointed out with one of his constituents, being a disabled individual and after 10 or 15 years of receiving a disability tax credit suddenly being told that the government will make that determination as to whether or not the person is disabled. These are people with genuine disabilities, people who had availed of the tax credit for years who were suddenly and summarily cut off from the program. That not only played havoc with the mental abilities of disabled people, it played havoc with the household budgets of thousands of Canadians on low or fixed incomes, who had little in the way of options to plug the hole in their budget that was caused by the stroke of a pen in Ottawa.

The speed and harshness of the cuts only served to maximize their impact. One day someone was a disabled person availing of a certain government program, and the next day that person was not disabled. There are no provisions to take into account the various types and levels of disability.

The member for Saint John made the very good point about the individual who happened to be mentally disabled. There is no x-ray for the doctor to hold up to the light and say that the individual is mentally disabled.

As a matter of fact, the form the CCRA sends to people has ridiculous questions, for example:

Can your patient perceive, think, and remember? Answer no only if, all or almost all the time, even with therapy, medication, or a device, your patient cannot perceive, think, and remember. For example, answer no if he or she cannot manage or initiate personal care without constant supervision.

This is absolutely ridiculous and it places the onus upon the doctor to get back to the CCRA on this.

The speed and harshness of the cuts only serve to maximize the impact. These questions, as the member for Cumberland—Colchester pointed out, are designed to exclude people. It makes it very difficult for people within the disabled community to get a fair reading from the government.

The government makes much of the fact that it has balanced the nation's books. What the government has really shown is that it had the necessary ruthlessness to balance the nation's books on the backs of the unemployed, the people who are disabled and the people who are sick in the community.

We see it everywhere, not just within the disabled community. Transfers to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education were cut as well, which threw the budgets of the provinces and the territories into a tailspin. A university education became the domain of the rich or the massively indebted. The sick are lined up for treatment in the health care system, whose strains are only surpassed by those of the armed forces. Now it is the disabled. In the regions of the country dependent on seasonal employment, there have been massive cuts to the EI system.

All of those things are an indication that the government is balancing its books on the backs of the unemployed, the people who are sick and who cannot avail themselves of decent health care. Now it is people who are disabled. First it was the sick, then it was the unemployed, and now it is our disabled community. All groups in our society are potential targets when the government starts slashing funding to serve its own particular priorities.

If the government would only cut out some of its waste and political patronage, that would go a long way to financing the disability tax credit that is suited to the everyday realities and practical needs of our disabled people.

We do not need any more unilateral cuts or changes. Interest groups should be thoroughly consulted about these things before sweeping changes are made to a program like the disability tax credit.

We are dealing here with many of our society's disadvantaged people. It behooves us to be extra sensitive, not insensitive, not unilateral, but extra sensitive to the harsh realities that are faced by many Canadians through no fault of their own.

It is no problem really for any of us to support this motion. The motion makes sense. It is a motion the government should be willing to deal with before the day is out.

We should also realize that the tax credit does not recognize the significant variation of cuts for individuals who have disabilities. We should realize that the tax credit only offsets a very small portion of the costs most individuals experience, which does not create tax fairness for people with disabilities. The tax credit does not benefit the majority of Canadians with disabilities because they might be living in poverty. Most of them do not have a taxable income.

A review was recently held by the parliamentary Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It held hearings last winter and issued a report on the issues related to the tax credit. The report criticized the CCRA for “practices that are grossly inadequate for people with disabilities”. It called for a complete overhaul of the disability tax credit program.

Everyone on this side of the House is in support of the government overhauling that program. Everyone on this side of the House is in support of the government doing something very quickly to help our disabled people.