Roy Cullen

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

moved:

That Motion No. 8 be amended by replacing all of the words after the words “(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) shall include” with the following: “a description of the management guidelines and policies of the Centre for the protection of human rights and freedoms”.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, moving now to Motion No. 4, the centre's decision to disclose information in accordance with section 55 of the bill is an extremely important one. It will be necessary for the centre to fully document the reasons for doing so in each and every case. It was always intended that the centre would do this and therefore I am prepared to support the amendment proposed by my colleague.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 3, we have no objection to the intent of the motion but we would suggest that it be redrafted to make it clear that the decision would be made by the officer on the basis of the criteria set out in the appropriate subsections rather than “on grounds that the officer believes to be reasonable”. The amended motion would read:

That Bill C-22, in clause 36, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 17 the following new clause:

“(3.1) If an officer decides to disclose information under subsection (2) or (3), the officer shall record in writing the reasons for the decision.”

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, could I now proceed to Motion No. 3?

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the various members for their co-operation in trying to reach some conclusion to these amendments.

Motion No. 2 would impose a legal requirement on customs officers to do what in certain circumstances is done as a matter of good administrative practice. My concern with the motion is that it would create a procedural burden for routine actions, such as a request of a customs officer to look inside the trunk of a car which is crossing the border.

The procedures proposed in Bill C-22 to deal with cross-border movements of large amounts of currency and monetary instruments are intended to dovetail with similar procedures dealing with the movement of goods. Introducing a requirement to create a written record for routine actions by customs officers at the border would add bureaucracy and cause unnecessary delays for the travelling public.

I therefore would like to propose the suggestion that officers be required to record in writing their reasons for decisions under this bill not apply to routine actions but be limited instead to the exercise of the powers under subsection 18(1) which deal with the seizure of currency or monetary instruments. Therefore the amended motion would read as follows:

That Bill C-22 be amended by adding after line 47 on page 10 the following new clause:

“19.1 If an officer decides to exercise powers under subsection 18(1), the officer shall record in writing reasons for the decision”.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support we have had from all members of the House on this important money laundering bill which went straight to committee on division. We are trying to see if we can agree on some arrangements with respect to one of the motions that the member from the Bloc has submitted.

I would like to speak very briefly about the process. Members know the way standing committees work. Many of them have set up a separate steering committee or planning committee. That committee meets and charts out the plan of the committee for a period of time.

I should say in the case of the House of Commons finance committee there is a steering committee. It met and there was a work plan established. Within that work plan there were two or three days of hearings and consultations with respect to the money laundering bill. Also within the plan there was a period the next day or the following day when there would be a clause by clause debate of the money laundering bill.

Admittedly it was tight program, but given the importance of the money laundering bill and the support in principle for the bill that schedule was agreed to by all parties on the steering committee and presented to the full committee for approval where it was approved.

When we make these commitments we know that the schedule is tight but we all try within our very busy schedules to deal with that timetable the very best way we can.

I would like to turn to Motion No. 1 by the Bloc. In principle we can understand why the hon. member might propose motion. Basically the proposition is that financial institutions will be required to report suspicious transactions. If they are required to report certain amounts to the centre that will be defined by regulation and through the guidelines, this will put some burden on financial institutions to report these transactions to the centre.

I should point out that there is already a voluntary regime in place. Many of the financial institutions are already complying. Not as many as we would like, and in fact that is why the bill calls for mandatory reporting.

The motion calls for the government to regulate the prices that institutions and professionals charge for their services. That is the bottom line. If a financial institution is burdened with some additional costs of reporting then the hon. member is saying that those costs should be borne by the financial institution or the financial intermediary and not by Canadian consumers. That is a laudable goal, but generally the government does not regulate the prices that federally regulated financial institutions charge for their services.

The motion would have to go beyond these institutions by regulating the prices of provincially regulated institutions, unregulated companies, casinos, and professionals covered by the bill. Even if we thought that it would be a good idea to regulate these prices, the task of monitoring compliance would be monumental, if not impossible.

As the government indicated at committee, the provisions in the bill will be implemented after close consultation with the institutions and professionals affected. Every attempt will be made to minimize the cost of complying with the bill. I do not think the compliance costs will be that significant. It will be up to every business and profession to determine how best to deal with the modest compliance costs that may result. I cannot support the motion and I would encourage hon. members not to support it.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the most fundamental point about the national missile defence program is that it is a U.S. program. The United States has not yet decided to deploy it and the U.S. government has not officially invited Canada to participate.

Work has continued in the U.S. on ballistic missile defence since the start of the star wars program in the mid-eighties. A national missile defence system, NMD, would be based on Earth and not in space although space sensors would be used to detect and track missile launches. An NMD system would launch from the ground an unarmed projectile called a kill vehicle that would intercept an incoming missile and destroy it by the sheer force of impact. As currently planned, NMD would counter an attack by a limited number of missiles and warheads.

The proponents of NMD in the U.S. argue that the emerging threat caused by the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction technology is a new factor, that the old bipolar world no longer exists and that U.S. security is being undermined. A rogue state with an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile, could limit American foreign policy options by blackmailing future American governments. Its intelligence estimates indicate that states of concern could develop such a capability within the next five to 10 years.

On July 23, 1999 President Clinton signed the National Missile Defence Act which states that an NMD system will be deployed when technologically feasible. The deployment decision has not yet been taken and might not be taken by this or even a succeeding administration.

When he signed the National Missile Defence Act into law, President Clinton stressed that a final decision to deploy a NMD system would take place only after a deployment readiness review had been completed. He also set out the following criteria that would govern a deployment decision: whether the threat is materializing; the status of the technology; whether the system is affordable; and national security considerations, including arms control and disarmament regimes, relations with Russia and the impact of the decision on allies.

The target date for this review is now July. While a decision to deploy could be taken as early as August this year, it would be some years before any—

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond today to the arguments presented by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst on the effects of the gas and diesel oil price increases on consumers and on the Canada trucking industry.

First I want to point out that recent gas and diesel oil price increases in Canada are directly due to the fact that international crude oil prices have almost tripled since the end of 1998.

Although the federal government does not control crude oil prices, under an agreement signed in 1995 with Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, it closely monitors the conditions and competition practices on the oil markets under the Competition Act.

The increase in oil prices is probably temporary. OPEP ministers will meet to discuss the possibility of increasing supply, which would reduce prices.

Nevertheless, I can assure hon. members that the Canadian government, as one of the 24 members of the International Energy Agency, will co-operate with its international partners to ensure stable international oil markets.

As for Canadians truckers, they will benefit from the tax relief measures provided for individuals as well as businesses in the February 2000 budget.

[Cultural Industry, May 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today, brought forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, states that the first $30,000 per year earned by artists, writers and performers be exempt from income tax.

I believe the intent behind the motion is very admirable. Supporting our remarkable and diverse community of artists such as poets, writers and visual performers is crucial to maintaining our identity as a nation. It is absolutely vital that we possess the necessary tools to safeguard our own culture and to tell our own stories.

As members know, the government is already devoting considerable resources to ensuring that our artistic and cultural industries remain prosperous and healthy, particularly as Canada enters a new millennium. These important resources are made available through a number of organizations and institutions and show the government's commitment to maintaining excellence in the arts.

I take this opportunity to highlight some of the main institutions, programs and policies available to help Canadian artists, writers and performers in pursuing their chosen craft.

For example, the government has implemented a considerable increase in the financial support for the Canada Council, adding $25 million to its annual funding starting in 1997-98. A further $10 million were announced in the budget presented to the House on February 28, 2000. In 1998-99 the council awarded nearly 5,700 grants for a total of $112 million in direct support for Canada's artists and artistic organizations.

Our National Film Board is known throughout the world for its quality reputation. The film board is dedicated to producing and distributing films, audio-visual and multi-media works which reflect Canada to Canadians and to the rest of the world. For over 60 years the film board has played a very significant role in Canadian and international filmmaking.

The Department of Canadian Heritage also offers a number of important programs, including the cultural initiatives program which facilitates the involvement of artists from across Canada in over 150 national and international arts festivals and special arts events. Canadian Heritage also operates the national arts training contribution program, supporting national institutions that prepare young Canadians for professional careers in the arts.

Turning our attention to the tax system, I would note that it too already includes a number of favourable provisions targeted to Canada's cultural sector. For example, artists may deduct the cost of creating a work or art in the year in which the costs are incurred, instead of when the work is ultimately sold. Moreover, employed artists and musicians are entitled to deduct certain expenses against their employment income, deductions which are not available to other employees.

Other important tax provisions for Canadian culture include the tax credit for Canadian film and video productions, write-offs for Canadian art purchased by unincorporated businesses, flexibility in evaluation of charitable gifts from an artist's inventory, and the capital gains tax exemption on gifts of cultural property.

Turning to the motion before us today, I once again wish to applaud the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys for seeking to provide additional support to our cultural community. However, I feel that introducing a tax exemption for income earned by certain individuals such as artists may not be the most effective tool for achieving this result.

As I have already noted, the tax system recognizes the circumstances of artists and musicians in a number of ways. These special provisions ensure that such individuals are not penalized as a result of various circumstances unique to their professions, such as the necessity of maintaining valuable musical instruments or the difficulty in valuing art pieces donated from an artist's inventory.

However, outside these special cases which the income tax system already accommodates, it is not clear that artists, writers or performers have greater needs than other individuals with comparable incomes. The tax system should as much as possible treat individuals in similar circumstances in a similar fashion. Thus, to provide a special tax exemption to an individual simply because he or she engages in artistic activities would be very difficult to defend on equity grounds. It would also lead to requests for similar treatment from other groups that also believe they are deserving of special status.

As to tax relief, I think that the government's approach of sustainable general tax relief is the right one. The five year tax reduction plan adopted by the government ensures real and significant tax relief for all taxpayers regardless of their chosen career.

Naturally, artists and writers will benefit from these historic tax reductions like all other taxpayers.

In conclusion, it is my view that the motion, well intentioned though it is, should not receive the support of the House at this time.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Red Deer. The alliance party has had a number of different names, but I think we could safely call it the party of hypocrisy. I do not know if it is a movement or a party. Someone suggested it is a movement, but I think it is a party.

There are many different flaws in the hon. member's argument. I would like to focus on just a couple of them, if I may, Mr. Speaker. First, I find it very hypocritical when the member stands up in the House and talks about the debt whereas in fact their proposition when they ran with their platform would have meant that the government would have been out of deficit two years later than what this government did, which would have meant of course that the debt would have increased even more quickly. I find it quite irrational for this member to get up in the House and make those comments.

Canadians must be confused with this issue about tax points. Let me explain if I might for the member opposite how it works. In 1977 the federal government vacated 13.5 percentage points of its personal income tax and 1 percentage point of its corporate income tax. In other words the government said “We are not going to charge citizens and corporate Canada as much federal income tax, so we invite you, the provinces, to move into that area. You charge citizens and corporations more tax”. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? That is exactly what they did.

The argument that the federal government later increased taxes and the provinces did this and the provinces did that is totally irrelevant. When the federal government vacated that tax room, the provinces immediately filled it. Since 1977 the world has changed. There have been a lot of things happening up and down, back and forth.

When the member talks about expenditures, the level of expenditure for direct program delivery of the federal government is down $4 billion from 1993 while at the same time our transfers to the provinces have been totally restored. Surely that says something about the priorities of this government. Our direct program expenditure is down $4 billion and the transfers to provinces have been completely restored.

Therefore, I find the member's arguments spurious in the least. The members talks about the grants and contributions going up in this budget. I am wondering if he understands the fact that the grants and contributions in the year 2000 budget are composed of $900 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation so that Canadians can be more innovative and have a more innovative economy. It also includes the research chairs to establish us as a pre-eminent research nation with our universities, our students and our professors. Those are just two. I could go on and on.

I wonder if the member could clarify his understanding of the debt and tax points because clearly he was muddled when he first started out. I wonder with these comments if perhaps he has absorbed that and he could rethink what he proposed before.