Pat Martin

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I for one find it absolutely shocking that the Minister of National Revenue of all people would have the unmitigated gall to stand in her place today and knowingly and willingly turn her back and forgo, or at least turn her back on, this incredible amount of money, which is a lost opportunity for Canadians.

In her job as the watchdog or the person in charge of oversight of our revenue taxation system, it has been brought to her attention many times today and other times that people are knowingly and willingly avoiding paying their fair share of taxes in Canada through these structural and by design tax havens. They are knowingly and willingly avoiding their taxes.

I call it economic treason when Canadian businesses or individuals take deliberate steps to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in Canada, in the country that gave them the opportunity to flourish and prosper and become wealthy for one good reason, because it puts an added burden on the rest of us. We have to shoulder their burden.

I would like the hon. Minister of National Revenue to give us an explanation. Never mind the issue of double taxation. I think we all agree that we need rules in place that no one gets hit twice, but we are talking about people who do not even get hit once. There are chartered banks, for instance. Would she not agree that our chartered banks that enjoy special privileges in this country and deliberately take steps to avoid paying their fair share here should lose their charter and be disciplined in that way for what I call economic treason?

[Criminal Code, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to speak to Bill C-250.

I would like to recognize and compliment my NDP colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, for his courageous and tireless life's work in seeking equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in this country.

I am proud to stand with him today and support Bill C-250 as a significant step in what I see as perhaps one of the last great civil rights struggles of our time. I wish to thank him for giving us all the opportunity to end this parliamentary sitting on a positive note by voting for an issue that I can be proud to support. I believe all of us should be proud to support the bill.

Bill C-250 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to include sexual orientation under the categories of hate propaganda. I think it is useful to examine what we mean by hate propaganda. One legal definition states:

Hate propaganda, as an exercise of expression, seeks to incite and encourage hatred and tension between different social and cultural groups in society.

It is a disreputable passion. Its purpose is to inflame, intimidate, and marginalize the individuals and the community at which it is directed. Hate speech serves to vilify and to undermine the dignity and self-worth of members of the target group, and erodes Canada's constitutional commitment to equality and multiculturalism.

Having said that, it is all the more important and admirable that we deal with this issue today in Parliament, hopefully before we adjourn for the summer. Every day in Canada, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are at risk of being verbally harassed, physically assaulted, and discriminated against because of their perceived sexual or gender orientation.

Sometimes this violence is extreme and culminates in murder. In November 2001 Aaron Webster was brutally murdered in Vancouver's Stanley Park and police believe the perpetrators beat Webster to death simply because he was gay. On December 4, 2002, the badly beaten body of Christopher Raynsford was discovered in his Ottawa apartment. It appears Raynsford was also murdered because he was a gay man.

Verbal abuse, whether it is taunts, epithets or threats often precede episodes of violence. In fact, verbal abuse is the best predictor of the physical violence that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are subjected to based on their sexual orientation. This fact points to the urgency of Bill C-250 which would make illegal the promotion of hatred against these Canadians. In doing so, I predict this will save innocent lives.

Under current federal legislation it is illegal to incite hatred on the basis of race, religion, colour or ethnic origin, but not, incredibly, sexual orientation, even though the empirical evidence shows that over 62% of incidents of violence against identifiable groups in society are those incidents against the gay community.

In the absence of prohibitions under law, incitements to hatred against LGBT Canadians are able to flourish with few, if any, real consequences to the perpetrators. In fact, the absence of Canadian law that prohibits the promotion of LGBT hate propaganda lends license to the perpetrators of such abuse, both within and outside our borders.

I point to the tactics and the website of American Fred Phelps, the so-called reverend of the Westboro Baptist Church. Phelps and his followers routinely picket the funerals of LGBT people with signs that read “God hates fags” or “AIDS cures fags” or “No fags in heaven”. These are some of their popular slogans.

Phelps' website features a memorial to Matthew Shepard, the Wyoming youth who was savagely tortured and murdered in 1998 because he was gay. The website features a photograph of Shepard burning in the fires of hell and stating the number of days he has been supposedly in hell since his murder. This is incredible.

Canadian police have been unable to do anything to prevent Phelps or people like him from entering Canada and inciting hatred against LGBT Canadians because of the absence of this reference in the Criminal Code. In 1999 Phelps visited Ottawa and prompted this response from Sergeant Pat Callaghan of the Ottawa-Carleton Police Hate Crimes Unit. He stated:

If this was done against a Catholic, a Jew or a black person, charges could be laid. If we had that legislation, we wouldn't have to put up with his nonsense on Monday. We could have told him, “If you show up and start spreading this hate, we'll arrest you”.

A Criminal Code amendment would allow police the ability to charge and arrest people like Phelps, who incite hatred against LGBT people. One bystander at the Phelps demonstration in Ottawa said that in Canada we can be whatever we want and we do not like it when people come into our quiet community and spread their hatred.

The critics of Bill C-250 claim that religious teaching and expression would be severely curtailed by the Criminal Code if it were amended in this way. This argument is patently false. The fact is that religious freedom and expression are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, furthermore, the Supreme Court of Canada has established strict criteria for the prosecution of suspected hate crimes. For example, before a prosecution of offences can proceed, the Supreme Court requires the consent of the attorney general in the province in which the alleged hate crime has occurred. The Supreme Court criteria also ensure that prosecution of suspected hate crimes occurs only when the situation is serious enough to warrant such an intervention.

Further to that, even though we do not believe it was legally necessary, there is an amendment to Bill C-250 which would specifically, once and for all, state clearly that quoting from any scripture is not to be considered a hate crime for the purposes of this act. That should give comfort to those who have raised the concerns that their freedom of speech regarding religious matters may be somehow infringed upon by this bill. It is simply not true.

Protecting LGBT Canadians from hate propaganda has gained widespread support. In 2001 Canada's provincial and territorial attorneys general urged the federal government to implement legislation to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground under federal hate propaganda legislation. Alberta Attorney General Dave Hancock stated:

I support the hate crime legislation which prohibits people from spewinghate against anybody for any reason. There are appropriate ways to discuss issues in our country...and you don't need to put forward hateful literature. It doesn't matter what you believe about sexual orientation.

The current hate propaganda laws in Canada that ban the incitement of hatred should include sexual orientation because of the overwhelming evidence that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are the object of what we already considered a hate crime and these crimes should be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation.

I believe it is a proud day for the House of Commons to add to the issue of equity and equal treatment for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. It is an honour for me to support Bill C-250 and I am proud to stand with my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas in his pursuit of equality for gay people in this country.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-24 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 101 the following new clause:

“71. (1) Within six months after becoming registered under Division 1.1 of Part 18 of the Canada Elections Act, as enacted by this Act, the registered association of a political party that is already registered on the coming into force of this section may provide the Chief Electoral Officer, in addition to the documents required by section 403.05 of that Act, with a report including

(a) a statement of contributions received by the registered association since the last general election and before the coming into force of this section from the following classes of contributor: individuals, businesses, commercial organizations, governments, trade unions, corporations without share capital other than trade unions, and unincorporated organizations or associations other than trade unions;

(b) the number of contributors in each class listed in paragraph (a);

(c) the name and address of each contributor in a class listed in paragraph (a) who made contributions of a total amount of more than $200 to the registered association, and that total amount; and

(d) in the case of a numbered company that is a contributor referred to in paragraph (c), the name of the chief executive officer or president of that company.

(2) No registered association of a political party that is already registered on the coming into force of this section shall transfer to a registered party, another registered association or a candidate any contributions that were received by the registered association during the period mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) unless it has filed the report under subsection (1).

(3) A registered association that wilfully contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and is liable

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2,000; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $5,000.

(4) This section ceases to have effect on the day that is five years after the day on which it comes into force.”

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

And it works.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

We actually levelled the playing field in the most literal sense. In fact, we went further. There is no public funding to reimburse or offset the lack of contributions or the reduction in contributions from labour or business. That is election campaign financing in its purest form. Only a registered voter is allowed to make campaign contributions.

It was a bill brought in by the NDP, the very first bill it introduced when it formed the government in 1999. Even then, those individuals are limited to a $3,000 maximum. No private individual can donate more than $3,000. That, I believe, is taking big money out of politics, and that, I believe, does send the message that no one in this country should be able to buy an election campaign. I am very proud that our provincial government did introduce those changes.

As well, however, I am not disappointed to be dealing in the House of Commons today with legislation that is at least similar. I believe the NDP will be able to support Bill C-24. We are optimistic that there will be amendments above and beyond Motion No. 11, which we are dealing with today. We support the idea that there should be a mandatory compulsory review after the first experience. That is only logical.

We are critical, though, of the fact that other amendments were not deemed votable at report stage, specifically the amendment dealing with trade union contributions and corporate contributions. We do not mind the limitation. We are not objecting to the limitation as such, but we are objecting to the fact that under Bill C-24 a trade union is defined in a way that is different from the way a trade union is defined in the Canada Labour Code. As such, only the national organization would be able to make a single contribution of $1,000 in most cases.

There might be a national union with 200 local unions across the country in the same organization. Under the Canada Labour Code they are considered individual trade unions, but for the purposes of Bill C-24 that large trade union would be able to make only one contribution of $1,000, whereas the inverse is not true for corporations. For instance, a corporation that has 200 franchises would be able to make a $1,000 contribution from each one of those 200 franchises. We find this fundamentally unfair, for two reasons.

First, the definition of a trade union is not consistent in the legislation. The definition in Bill C-24 should be the same as the definition in the Canada Labour Code. Second, it is a severe disadvantage in terms of individual trade union locals, which may be fairly large entities unto themselves. There may be 3,000 members in that local union, but they will not be able to make any political campaign contribution; only the parent organization, the national body, will be able to make a political contribution. That is one thing that we in the NDP wish to see addressed in the bill in the interests of fairness.

The second thing we will be speaking to is the idea of trust funds. There will be limitations put in place for all future contributions made to trust funds. After Bill C-24 comes into effect, it will have to be disclosed who is making those contributions to the trust funds, but that rule is not retroactive.

There are substantial trust funds in place already that members of Parliament have developed personally and that provincial wings of political parties have developed and of which we have no record. We will not be able to trace who made those contributions. That is going to be the subject of an interesting debate later on when we get to those amendments.

Suffice it to say that Canadians do not want to go toward the American model. I believe, and others may disagree with my personal opinion, that big money has ruined American politics. I do not say that lightly and I do not say that to be hypercritical in any way of our American friends. It is just that for a person to seek a seat in congress in this day and age, one needs $1 million or even $2 million to run a successful campaign. To run for the senate, one could need $5 million or $10 million. There was one woman in California who spent $20 million and did not succeed.

When big money gets into politics to that degree, people cannot start their political lives without owing an enormous debt to financial backers. As well, elected politicians spend most of their time gathering money for their next challenge two or four years down the road. To put it quite simply, money influences politics far too much in that model. I am proud that we are taking steps to try to diminish that here today.

I cannot help but think what a difference it would have made in some of the more famous scandals that we have seen lately, for instance the public works scandals with the advertising sponsorship contracts, if there had been rules in place that businesses could not donate money to political parties, period. There would be far less incentive for governments to give out money for nothing contracts to friendly businesses who may make political campaign contributions, thinking that they will then get access to a greater number of contracts from the government. That kind of thing would have been self-correcting were it in place years ago.

We would hope that the changes we are making today will put a stop at least to some of that kind of corrupt allocation of public works contracts. We are not sure. As I say, we are still critical that there are ways now within Bill C-24 for businesses to make campaign contributions in such a way that they could--and I am not saying they will, but they could--influence government decision making. Surely what this bill is all about is to get big money out of politics.

I see I only have one minute left, but suffice it to say I am very proud that the province of Manitoba has seen fit to adopt what I believe is the purest and cleanest democracy in the country. Only a registered voter should be able to make a political campaign contribution, and even that campaign contribution should have a limit. The limit set in Manitoba is $3,000 maximum. In that way we are much less likely to run the risk of undue influence by big money in Canadian politics.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-24 at report stage although there is only one amendment in Group No. 2, which deals with the mandatory review to be undertaken after the first election conducted under these new election financing rules.

I am particularly pleased to join the debate today being a member of Parliament from Manitoba, where we recently conducted our first election campaign under new election financing rules. I should point out that in our province of Manitoba under our new election financing rules, I believe it is the purest and cleanest democracy in the country as it stands today, for the simple reason that the NDP government in Manitoba passed a law indicating that only a registered voter can make a political campaign contribution. There are no contributions at all allowed from businesses or trade unions.

When we made those changes we made them completely and absolutely.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly 10 years since the Prime Minister wrote the Lubicon Cree First Nation and promised that as soon as he formed government he would settle their legitimate and longstanding grievances. Ten years have passed, the world is watching and the Lubicon are still waiting.

Will the Prime Minister rise today and tell us that before he leaves office he will ensure that satisfaction is given to the legitimate, historic injustices that face the Lubicon Cree?

[Free Trade Agreements, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to use a couple of minutes to add my support to the motion put forward by the member for Joliette. While we in the New Democratic Party support fair trade, we believe that some of the free trade agreements that our country has entered into on our behalf were badly negotiated, have left this country vulnerable and have actually jeopardized the whole issue of Canadian sovereignty.

My hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre has made the point that when we lose our economic sovereignty, we eventually lose our national sovereignty altogether.

The most galling aspect of the free trade agreements that we cite today and the one we believe was the most badly negotiated on our behalf was the chapter 11 aspect that gave corporations essentially the right to sue. It gives corporations nation state status in the sense that they can sue the nation state of Canada for lost opportunity. One of the examples that we predict will be a big issue is water. As soon as water becomes a marketable commodity, if an American corporation or any foreign corporation with which we have a free trade deal with the chapter 11 clause feel they should have a right to get into that marketplace and to deal in the marketing of fresh water and we denied them that right, we could be sued for lost opportunity.

Most Canadians would find that to be an absurd situation, to make us so vulnerable and to put us in a vulnerable position of that nature, but that is exactly what the negotiators of the free trade agreement have done. We have examples where in our country we saw fit to ban the gasoline additive MMT because we felt it was not healthy for our children to be breathing this gasoline additive. The American manufacturer of that additive said that we were interfering with its rights or opportunities to sell that commodity. It sued Canada for lost opportunity and Canada paid. This will become a mini industry by itself. If corporations were smart they would enter into this type of thing deliberately and find something that Canada is opposed to on principle and then sue it for lost opportunity. Why would we do that?

I have made that argument before. I believe that the people we sent down to negotiate the FTA and NAFTA were like Jack and the Beanstalk going to the market and trading the family cow for three beans, none of which has yet actually sprouted. In other words, we either settled too soon or we left glaring omissions in the deal where we should have taken steps to protect Canadian sovereignty.

The member's motion makes it clear that Canada, as we enter into free trade agreements with our trading partners around the world, should never again have a clause in a free trade agreement, such as chapter 11, that leaves Canada vulnerable and is a disservice to all Canadians in the interest of expanding trade. It compromises and surrenders Canadian sovereignty, as the member for Halifax so eloquently pointed out.

I support the motion. I urge all members of the House, even in their zeal to support freer trade, to take this cautionary note put forward by the member for Joliette to not have Canada enter into any trade agreements that would so fundamentally jeopardize our Canadian sovereignty.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, more than one of the people making interventions today have pointed to the contribution made by the Senate in what they view as making improvements to the bill.

Would the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, agree that this place has to run on precedent, certainly, the precedent being that the other place, the Senate, does not have the authority to split a bill approved by House of Commons?

I believe one strong precedent happened in 1988 with Bill C-103, the bill to establish the Cape Breton Corporation. When it was passed in the House and then sent to the Senate, the Senate then split that bill and sent one part back to the House. At that time Speaker John Fraser ruled that the privileges of the House had been breached but, not having the power to enforce his decision, the Speaker then asked that the House claim its privileges by sending that message to the Senate. A large controversy prevailed and a motion was then moved by the hon. Doug Lewis to indicate that in the opinion of the House, the Senate had contravened Standing Order 87, and asked that the Senate return Bill C-103 in its undivided form.

I was just wondering, in a House of Commons that is bound to live up to an established precedent, how the member feels that the Senate did a good job in dividing this bill.

[Canadian Alliance, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with all the Alliance flip-flops lately one has to wonder if it has a secret deal with David Orchard as well.

It used to demand that corporations regulate themselves. Then a rail accident hit B.C. What did the Alliance say? It flip-flopped faster than Mike Harris and Walkerton. It said to get government back on the job with more regulations.

It used to want to privatize medicare and railed on about those lazy bureaucrats wasting money in the health system. Then SARS hit and the Alliance discovered some value in public health care. It mocks the Tories on principles, but during a health crisis its principles go into hiding.

Then there is EI. When EI cuts hurt Quebec and Atlantic Canada, the Alliance could not care less. It said to just cut faster. Now it cannot stop talking about EI as if it has just realized that the unemployed are people too.

The next thing we know it will want more money for farmers after demanding that Liberals cut subsidies to farmers even faster. So much for Alliance principles.