Roy Cullen

[Canada Elections Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington has it wrong because we cannot look at the donations that were made today to the Prime Minister's campaign and then conclude that they must have been the same people back in 2002. That is just not good enough. The member opposite knows that.

There could have been a whole group of different people in 2002, different corporations. It was then the Alliance Party. If I were to stand in the House and say I did not disclose my donations in the election campaign in 1997, but in the election campaign in 2000 we could see the list of people who donated to my campaign and we could infer that it was the same group. It is not good enough. The member opposite should know that.

[Canada Elections Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the trust fund situation of my former colleague from Trinity—Spadina. In fact, I think those trust funds have all been wound down.

There are different motivations for setting up a trust fund. I have a trust fund. I have a trust fund because when I receive donations, I want to put it on deposit and I want to have it there. It is all receipted through the party, so the party gets its commission or whatever. I put it in a trust fund so that I can put it on deposit, it can earn money, and it is earmarked for an election campaign.

We need to understand that when we raise money, it is to run elections. There is a tendency certainly in many associations if we have the money there in an association's bank account to suddenly, if there is a great idea to support people who go to this convention or that convention, have a big picnic, to do this and that which are all good things, but we have to have the money there to fight an election campaign.

Therefore, I have a trust fund. It is all fully disclosed. There are no donations going directing to my trust fund. It all comes from the association. It is all receipted. It is all publicly available. Once it goes through that process, I put it into a trust fund. It is a legal trust fund sanctioned by the party and sanctioned by Elections Canada.

One of the things that some people were annoyed about is when they collected money, it had to go through the party and the party collected a commission. That was fair enough. It has to run the party apparatus as well, but some people were quite upset about that. I do not think it is driven by the need to hide donations, but right now the trust funds are all wrapped up, the way that one was and I am sure that it is appropriate.

[Canada Elections Act, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to complete my remarks this morning on Bill C-54.

I should also say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Churchill.

Members of Parliament are honest people. Unfortunately, we have been tarred, I think unjustly at times, by the public. Most people in the chamber would agree that everything should be transparent with respect to where we raise our money or what loans we have backing us. I for one believe that anything I do can be posted on a website, I will be accountable for it, and people can hold me accountable for it because they can elect me or not.

It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not been forthcoming. In his 2002 leadership campaign he failed to disclose the sources of the people who donated to his leadership bid. I would like to know that and I think many Canadians would like to know who supported the Prime Minister in his leadership bid in 2002. Was it the coalition for guns? Was it Canadian big business? Who was it? Right now we can only speculate and I think the Prime Minister would do himself a service if he came clean.

I should contrast that to the Liberal Party's last leadership campaign and conference in which the leadership candidates went above and beyond everything that was required by Elections Canada.

We need rules and regulations, but I believe that full transparency is a much more powerful tool.

I recall one incident that had to do with the Ethics Commissioner. I was invited to go to the Grey Cup in Ottawa a few years ago by some big company that I knew about. Everyone knew the name. I do not recall having any dealings with it. I told my staff to phone the Ethics Commissioner's office to find out if this was appropriate and get its blessing.

A member of my staff spoke to someone at the Ethics Commissioner's office and the person said that because the Grey Cup was such a big event I would be sitting with corporate people from that company and there would be no time to talk business. The individual thought it was inappropriate. To me it seemed totally counterintuitive. I would have thought the opposite would have been the case. I did not go to the Grey Cup.

That is the problem when one tries to regulate and micromanage things at that level. Let us be accountable and transparent. We have a very good transparent and accountable system in the Parliament of Canada. People vote frequently, sometimes far too frequently as they see it and certainly as many of us see it, but they have a vote. They can kick us out if they see that we took a donation from a company or individual who they feel is inappropriate.

I recall being the treasurer of the riding association of the former member for Etobicoke North who received a large donation, I would say in the thousands of dollars. That conjures up thoughts of $40,000 or $50,000, but it was not even $10,000. I talked to the member at the time. I was the treasurer, a part time volunteer. We discussed it and decided that it was inappropriate to accept a donation of what I will say was $5,000 at the time because there was clearly an agenda, at least in our judgment, by the company making the donation. We sent back a letter, thanked it profusely, and said we felt it was inappropriate.

I have had donations of $200, $250 from corporations and those are basically the size of any corporate donations. I have had some slightly larger over the years. Is a $250 donation going to buy my position in the House of Commons where I am representing the people of Canada? Of course it would not. If that were the case, I would send the cheque back. No amount is going to change my mind about a position I am going to take. I am going to take a position that is, in my judgment, in the best interests of all Canadians. That can be a judgment call and people would agree to disagree.

However, I think we get so hung up with these rules and regulations. I for one voted against our government's bill, Bill C-24, election financing, and tried to work a compromise out with the then Prime Minister to limit corporate donations but not to the extent that they were then or are today.

I do not think the bill accomplishes that much. It sort of reinforces what is already on the books. We cannot use loans to circumvent the donation limits. That is already there and we have to disclose these loans.

Certainly, I support transparency, accountability, and I am going to ask our critic for his best advice once the bill goes to committee, but at this point I am not sure it adds any value.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has not read the motion or he would know that our motion asks the government to respond in a certain way. Reliability does not come into the equation, nor do all the other issues that he talked about.

Nonetheless, I share the concern of my colleague from Scarborough Centre. Many people in my riding relied on the word of the Conservative government when the Conservatives said they were not going to tax income trusts. People made investments based on that and have been hurt significantly.

We know that we had to do something with income trusts. In fact, the member for Wascana brought in some measures to reduce the taxes on corporations. With the benefit of hindsight, that may not have been enough, but the finance minister is bringing in an elephant to kill a mouse. He is probably trying to be decisive, which is the latest catchword around here, but one does not bring in measures and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We know that income trusts were working for the energy sector and for real estate. The government could have done much more in terms of grandfathering. Even if it had to bring in measures, it could have done something on grandfathering so that at least those people who made those investments would not have been injured.

I share the concern that my colleague from Scarborough Centre expressed earlier. That is why our motion says that the Minister of Finance needs some good advice on this question of the non-deductibility of interest. Let us bring in the experts.

The minister is in a bit over his head. He left Ontario with huge budgetary deficits. Is this the kind of person we want dealing with complex issues around tax avoidance and tax evasion? There are some issues there, but again, we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We deal with those issues. There are complex issues around the taxation of dividends from affiliates and questions of tax havens. Let us ring-fence that and let us--

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I will say for the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre that I am not sure how the references to Kyoto and other matters are tied into the discussion of the motion before us today. I think he is wandering. I would like him to come back to the topic at hand.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Timmins—James Bay has a problem with his trousers, he should get his tailor to properly adjust the length of them. Maybe someone should tell him that the floods are over.

With respect to what he said, he perhaps was not listening to what I said earlier. It was our government that brought in legislation to change the provisions of the Investment Canada Act.

Maybe the member does not read the newspapers, but I certainly do and I think many colleagues in this House do. We have seen the recent spate of takeovers. Those takeovers are a result of a number of things. They are a result of the fact that there are many private equity players awash with cash. It is a fact that it is a global economy. I do not think that should say that we stand back. It is time for us to reassess our Investment Canada Act and the criteria that we use. There are many countries that have a public interest test or a national interest test. It is time that we began to look at that.

Regarding the member's question about the tax havens, in this House I think there is a lot of misinformation that is being promoted. The member for Timmins—James Bay perhaps does not fully understand business economics, but the reality is that those in the international shipping business have to base themselves offshore. They have to have a flag of convenience or they simply cannot compete.

It is the same with respect to the non-deductibility of interest. Even though we might argue in this House that it is not a very wise policy, the reality is that if Canadian companies want to bid on companies abroad, that is what they are up against. They are up against companies that can deduct interest for the acquisition of companies abroad. We need to get a little bit of reality into the discussion.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

The misguided policies of the Conservative government, especially its finance minister, are making it increasingly difficult for Canadian businesses to succeed internationally. At the same time, Canadian companies are now particularly vulnerable to foreign takeover as a result of this government's income trust policy and, more recently, the wrong-footed corporate non-deductibility of interest proposal.

The Conservative industry and finance ministers stand by as strategic Canadian corporate icons are swallowed up by interests outside our borders. The worst is yet to come. Energy and other natural resource companies are special targets of private equity players awash with cash and of companies in emerging economies seeking more control over their commodity supply chain.

Already the list of recent foreign takeovers is staggering: Inco, Falconbridge, IPSCO, Dofasco, Algoma Steel, Fairmont Hotels, Labatt, CN, Four Seasons Hotels, and Hudson's Bay. Hudson's Bay is the oldest commercial corporation in North America. It received its royal charter in 1670 to develop the fur trade in Canada and it is now in the hands of outside interests. Canadian corporate icons Bell Canada Enterprises and Alcan are also in play as foreign takeover targets.

What does the Conservative government do? Nothing.

The Conservatives stand by and rubber stamp the takeovers, using the toothless provisions of the Investment Canada Act. Since the Investment Canada Act was passed in 1985, there have been over 11,000 foreign acquisitions of Canadian companies. No investments have ever been blocked under the Investment Canada Act.

The reason for this is that the current criteria under the act, with the exception of certain financial services, telecommunication, transportation and cultural industries, are strictly economic. The stated purpose of the Investment Canada Act is:

--to encourage investment in Canada by Canadians and non-Canadians that contributes to economic growth and employment opportunities and to provide for the review of significant investments in Canada by non-Canadians in order to ensure such benefit to Canada.

Typically what happens today is the following: a non-Canadian company wishing to acquire a Canadian company convinces Industry Canada that their transaction will result in more investment and more jobs. Industry Canada signs off, perhaps after achieving some modest concessions, and the deal is approved. They are all approved, Mr. Speaker.

What happens in the medium to long term to the companies that emerge from these transactions after the dust has settled? Who monitors the commitments made? While it is difficult to get straight answers on this from Industry Canada, we have anecdotal evidence that would suggest that after the passage of time the acquiring company’s real strategy emerges.

Plants are closed, corporate decision makers are located outside of Canada, and product mandates and core competencies are focused in jurisdictions outside of Canada. When hedge funds and private equity players are involved, we can assume that short-term increases in shareholder value are the goal. Assets are downsized, stripped and sold for short-term profit.

What should we do about this hollowing out of corporate Canada? Our Liberal government in the last Parliament introduced changes to the Investment Canada Act to give more power to the federal government to reject unwanted takeovers. This bill died on the order paper because of the January 2006 election and this Conservative government has not reintroduced similar legislation. This is not surprising at all, given the laissez faire attitude of the current industry minister and this government.

I have great faith in the markets, but markets alone do not always respond in ways that are beneficial to Canadians. That is why Canadians elect members of Parliament to the House of Commons, to protect and assert their interests, not stand by and watch while our national assets are being eroded.

In my view we should amend the Investment Canada Act and replace the current net benefit test with a national interest test, or at the very least, with a national security test. There are many countries that already have such criteria.

Companies wishing to acquire a corporation in the United Kingdom must demonstrate that the transaction is in the public interest. In Japan foreign takeovers are reviewed to ensure that they do not pose any public security, public order or public safety threats and that they do not have the potential to adversely influence the national economy.

Not surprisingly, foreign takeovers of strategic assets in countries like China, Mexico, Russia and India are difficult, if not impossible.

In Australia, a takeover must prove to the satisfaction of the Australian government that the proposed acquisition is in Australia's national interest. In Australia, national interest is considered in relation to the widely held concerns of Australians, its laws and policies, national security interests and economic development. In my view, Australia's approach to defining the national interest is a sound one.

Some argue that the national interest or public interest tests discourage foreign direct investment. We need to encourage, not discourage investments by foreign interests in Canada. I agree with that.

Let us look for a moment at the experience in Australia. Although it seldom occurs, Australia has used the national interest test to block large scale foreign investment. For example, in 2001, the Australian government rejected an attempt by Shell Oil in a hostile takeover bid for an Australian energy company, Woodside Petroleum Limited. This $10 billion Australian bid was rejected on the grounds that Shell would operate the company as part of its global portfolio and not in the best interests of the company itself. Does this sound familiar? Have we had similar concerns?

Following the decision by the Australian government, while there were market reactions in the short term, the impact was short lived. Foreign direct investment into Australia has grown from $9 billion U.S. in 2001 to $58 billion U.S. in 2004.

If we moved to a national interest test for foreign takeovers, how should we define this? As I mentioned earlier, I believe the Australian model is a good one. National interests need to be defined, as best one can, by policy, by regulation and with guidelines. We should have a debate around this in Canada.

In my judgment, Canadian companies that are of strategic importance to Canada because of their size and reach, companies that are focused on the development and environmentally sound exploitation of our natural resources, and Canada’s energy assets should be subject to careful review and protected from foreign acquisition.

If Canada adopts a national interest test for foreign takeovers, will this impact on the ability of Canadian companies to grow and expand internationally? Not in the least, I submit. These Canadian companies will still have to meet the test imposed by those countries in which the acquisition target is located. How can there be retaliation when so many jurisdictions have national interest or national security tests of their own?

What will slow down international expansion is the rules the government has brought in on the non-deductibility of interest and also on the income trusts.

We must stand up for Canada. Where non-Canadian companies wish to acquire Canadian companies, it is often quite obvious what their agenda is. The question for us as parliamentarians to consider is, what is Canada's agenda, what is in our national interest? We cannot avoid this question. It is time to act.

[Canada Elections Act, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is quite limited, but I will try to summarize my views on Bill C-54 in which I am very pleased to participate today.

I guess I come at this particular issue from the point of view of transparency. I think as members of Parliament we should disclose the sources of any funding, the sources of any loans, but I am not particularly excited about the limits.

We introduced in our mandate Bill C-24, the elections financing act. In fact, I was the only member of the Liberal caucus at the time that voted against the bill at report stage. I felt that it was wrong-footed. I understood that the time the need to restrict corporate donations and in fact a group of us tried to work out a compromise and limit corporate donations to $10,000, but that was not to be.

I have in my riding companies that have branch plants and operations across the country. Under the previous regime of Bill C-24, they could donate $1,000 and now they cannot even do that. If they have branch plants they might want to support the political process and give $250 to the MP or the candidate in a certain riding. I think it is unfortunate that we have brought in these limits for unions and business. I do not think it is appropriate.

In 1998 the Canadian banks wanted to merge. They were very anxious to do that. The banks, it is well known, used to provide huge donations to all the political parties and what good did it do them?

I think the idea that corporate donations buy influence is vastly overstated. I totally believe in transparency, but my problem with this particular bill is that it tends to have some unintended consequences in the sense that it might preclude people who do not have access to cash to get involved in the political process and take out a loan.

The current provisions of the legislation already call for them to repay the loans and they have to do it within the context of the loan limits, of the donation limits, so they cannot avoid the donation rules through loans. Therefore, I am not sure what this new bill is all about, other than restating what is already on the books.

The member for Winnipeg Centre talked about the laundering of money. I think that is a pretty strong statement. I know our country has brought in one of the strongest anti-money laundering regimes in the world. If this was a money laundering operation, I would certainly object to it, but I know my colleague from Vancouver Quadra is the expert on this. I know he will be trying to improve the bill at committee.

I certainly hope, when the bill comes back to the House, it will be new and improved and then I will be happy to have a look at it.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have a rich imagination when it comes to boondoggles. The gun registry now is operating on a very sound financial basis. The registry itself is costing less than $24 million to operate. Yes, it cost too much to build the system. We know that now. We have dealt with those questions. There is no question about a $2 billion boondoggle. The member knows that full well.

With respect to his question, I am not aware of great dissension within the ranks on this side of the House on this bill. I find it strangely ironic when the members on the Conservative side would look to the Liberals as baying sheep and following the Prime Minister and their leader. On this side of the House we have a good and honest and open debate on matters. Then we look across the floor and the Conservatives are all stacking up and voting like sheep with their leader.

I am unaware of any dissension on this bill on this side. Good healthy debate and division is not necessarily a bad thing. I thought that is what the Conservative Party had been promoting over these many years. I will support the bill and I think the vast majority of my colleagues will as well.

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous offenders and recognizance to keep the peace).

With this bill, the government purports to make it easier for crown attorneys to obtain dangerous offender designations. I will support the bill so it can go to committee.

Unfortunately, the bill is not tough enough on dangerous offenders, and I am surprised. We always hear from our Conservative colleagues across the floor that they are the group that will get tough on crime.

This is a pretty weak bill. It does not deal with the issue of dangerous offenders completely enough. I will come back in a moment to the reason why I say that and why I will support our party's proposed amendments if it does get to committee. Our amendments would strengthen the bill and make it more difficult for dangerous offenders to create havoc in our communities and make our streets unsafe and our communities less secure.

I think of circumstances in Toronto and Etobicoke North and Rexdale in my riding. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of gun related crimes tied to drugs and gangs. Fortunately, in the last year there has been a decrease in that because of some raids by the police, in which 100 people were arrested. We cannot let our guard down. There is still a lot of work to do. I will come back to this in a moment.

One case that comes to mind happened in 2005 in Mayerthorpe, Alberta where four RCMP officers, Constable Brock Myrol, Constable Leo Johnston, Constable Peter Schiemann, and Constable Anthony Gordon, were regrettably and tragically killed. James Roszko, who took his own life, was the perpetrator of that horrific crime. That 46 year old man was a convicted pedophile and had a long history of violence and mental illness. People in the community called him a ticking time bomb. If I recall correctly, the police and the crown prosecutors had tried to have him put away as a dangerous offender or a long term offender, but were unsuccessful.

Hindsight is 20/20. If we had the provisions in this bill and the amendments, which our party will introduce to toughen it up, perhaps this unfortunate and tragic incident would not have occurred, but of course we do not know that for sure. That is why I will be supporting the bill.

I mentioned earlier that the bill does not go far enough and is not tough enough in a number of respects, and I will give the House a couple of examples. My colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, talked about a couple of them.

The bill is deficient because the decision to pursue the dangerous offender designation is entirely within the designation of the Crown. There is nothing that mandates that a crown attorney must seek a designation either for repeat offenders or for specific types of offences. We should insist on an amendment that would create a provision that the Crown must seek a dangerous offender hearing for those who have three convictions for serious offences. We should be looking at mandatory offender hearings for those who are involved in certain crimes like violent gun crimes.

That would help my riding in Toronto where we unfortunately have repeat offenders, people who are involved in gangs, drugs and have handguns. They commit offences, are taken to court, released in many cases on bail and they reoffend. Then they are arrested and convicted again. These people are not really a benefit to the community while they are engaged in that type of behaviour. For certain types of violent gun crimes, we should look at mandatory hearings as dangerous offenders, and I will support that.

Another flaw in the Conservatives' legislation is this. Some people are on long term offender supervision orders. Some will violate the provisions of that order. In other words, they might be required to report to a parole officer, or they might be required not to go to certain areas such as parks, swimming pools, public places, or there could be a whole range of provisions. If they violate the terms of their order, it is my view that we should allow crown attorneys to order a new dangerous offender hearing for those types of individual. This is an area where the bill could be toughened up to make it more difficult for dangerous offenders to create havoc in our communities.

Our party is supporting the increase in the age of consent. We support mandatory minimums for certain targeted offences. For gun crime offences, we support mandatory minimum sentences. That is why we have proposed an increase. This is in line with the changes.

When we were the government, before the last election, we tabled those types of changes to the mandatory minimums for gun related crimes from one to two years for certain offences and from four to five years. It is important to do that. We should not get carried away with mandatory minimums. The research it is quite clear that mandatory minimums do not always have the kind of results that people would like to see.

The other thing we need to do, in dealing with criminals and violent crime, crime of any sort, is to approach it in a way that is multi-faceted. We cannot only toughen sanctions. We need to toughen the penalties as well. We also need to look at how police operate. We know more visible policing in the community has an impact. We also know community policing is helpful, where the police can work closely with young people in the schools and develop relationships. That is then used to build trust and to help young people, who could find themselves getting into trouble, and to prevent crimes. We should really be focusing on preventing crime. When we formed the government, we brought in the national crime prevention strategy and the national crime prevention program, and I was pleased about that.

In my riding of Etobicoke North, we have launched a whole range of programs over the years that help young people to get out of gangs and stay out of them or to not get involved with gangs at all. They give them an alternative to guns, drugs and violence.

It is a tragic development that the Conservatives on the other side want to scrap the gun registry. That is a big mistake. All we have to do is look at the events in the United States recently where access to handguns is almost as easy as buying a pizza. We need to keep reinforcing the need for people to licence and register guns. We need this multi-faceted approach. That is why I will support the bill, to send it to committee, to toughen it up, to make it a better bill and to ensure that dangerous offenders do not create problems in our communities.