Paul Szabo

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I know the member has been involved in foreign affairs files for many years during her career as an hon. parliamentarian.

The issue here ultimately comes down to this. It appears that Canada has been in violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, and this is the allegation. I heard the words of the member for Cambridge already, but I do not believe the House has been reminded often enough of the terms under which it would be determined that someone would be in violation. It is not a matter that we simply think that something happens, it is a matter of whether we are aware. Just by being aware that there is the possibility, I believe we could be in violation of international law.

Maybe the member could answer this question. Why is it so important that we clear our name to ensure that the reputation of Canada continues to be in favour of human rights?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we have already established that this is a constitutional privilege of Parliament, that it is in the Standing Orders and has been extended to committees of the House. Even the parliamentary law clerk has given his opinion that under the Canada Evidence Act, notwithstanding public safety and national security interests, it is available.

There is already information in the public domain that a detainee in the custody of Canadians and released to the Afghans was in fact tortured. The issue at question is whether or not it happened. The government was saying no and now, all of a sudden, evidence has come out. I also understand that embedded journalists have information as well, including film, and that more will be coming out.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on this. The government simply has to stop the stonewalling and the cover-up and make sure that we take the appropriate steps as we move forward on this. It just needs to stand up and be responsible for its actions or, in fact, its inaction.

[Points of Order, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was also in the chamber when the Minister of National Defence made the comment that the member had nothing to offer to the debate. It was quite clearly a dismissive remark.

Standing Order 18 reads:

No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote...

I am advised that this section in our Standing Orders has not changed in its wording since Confederation. I would suggest that its interpretation is a matter of whether it is respectful. The comment made by the Minister of National Defence certainly was not respectful of the hon. member of Parliament.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Parliament has the constitutional right to call for persons, papers and records, and that authority is delegated to all our committees under Standing Order 108(1)(a).

Mr. Colvin had the documents. The generals also had the unredacted documents available to them when they testified. Did we ask the generals, and if not, why not?

It is a matter of when the request for the government to provide the documents was issued. The government indicated and the generals had indicated that there was no information in the redacted form that would indicate there was torture. That appears not to be the case.

Can the committee not ask the government again for the unredacted documents?

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I guess as Canadians follow this story, they are a little confused why parliamentarians, who represent all the people in the country, are unable to have access to the documents. I think they have all heard about Parliament's unfettered right to call for persons, papers or records, and we have had many examples in the past and there have been challenges in the courts.

There is another way and I am wondering why the committee did not seek to have the government swear in as Privy Councillors those members of the committee who were not already Privy Councillors, which would in fact give them the chance to review the unredacted documents in camera. It would have been an eminently good approach, simply because the government and witnesses had declared there was nothing in the materials that would indicate anything about torture.

Were there other options considered by the committee?

[Petitions, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, briefly, the second petition is one that the House embraced earlier, concerning support for the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare. These petitioners, from my riding of Mississauga South, simply want to add their names to the names of members and Canadians who have already indicated that they want the Government of Canada to support the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare.

[Petitions, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is on a very important issue, I know to this House, on child pornography and victimizations.

These petitioners, from my riding of Mississauga South, want to draw to the attention of the House that the creation, use and circulation of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians, that the CRTC and Internet service providers have a responsibility for the content that is being transmitted to Canadians, and that anyone who uses the Internet facilities to facilitate any sex offences involving children is committing a federal offence.

These petitioners, therefore, call upon the Parliament of Canada to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to stop the Internet as a medium for the distribution of child victimization pornography.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate, members have been calling for consultations with the public. If they look at Bill C-62, which is an enabling legislation amending the Excise Tax Act, they will see that there are no clauses to do with the HST, at least none that I could see. There are a number of changes on issues such as the provisions for direct sellers and some other consequential amendments, but there is nothing in here that the public would actually be able to comment on, unless the member is aware of any clause in Bill C-62 that has something to do with what he was talking about.

I suggest to the member that the consultation process with the public has to do with the legislation of the Province of Ontario and the Province of B.C., which are harmonizing their provincial taxes with an existing federal tax. The body that will deal with that legislation in fact is a provincial legislature.

Therefore, I would like the member to explain what exactly would happen with the public at our finance committee meetings, if they came before us on Bill C-62. What exactly would they be discussing, other than saying, “We don't want you to pass this bill so that the Province of Ontario can't pass its bill”?

If that is the point, then say so.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thought it was interesting when I heard one of the member's last comments about getting some input on how we could ease the imposition and make some changes on the impacts of the tax on people.

Bill C-62 has nothing to do with that. The legislation that is coming before Ontario and B.C. does. He has contradicted himself and I want to know whether he is aware of anything in Bill C-62, the bill we are debating right now, which would assist solving the question that he has raised, or is he in fact simply going to admit that what he is asking for is what should be handled in the provincial legislatures?

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there are no changes in federal legislation as it relates to first nations, pursuant to the agreement between Ontario and the Government of Canada or between B.C. and the Government of Canada. There are no changes there, so I do not know exactly what the member is suggesting we discuss here. If there were changes, certainly they would be discussed.

Regarding the $6 billion, the member is referring to the compensation that the federal government is paying to Ontario and B.C. with regard to all of the things involved with taking two systems of taxation and putting them together. There are obviously a lot of costs involved and they were negotiated with the provinces individually, as were the other three when they came in, and as the province of Quebec negotiated its deal.

This is part of the process that it goes through, but the bottom line, and I do not want to be coy with any of it, is that there is no question that if we were to defeat Bill C-62 and these amendments never passed, then there would be no harmonized sales tax in Ontario or B.C. That is true, but are the members saying that we do not want the provinces to have the tools they need to deal with the economic recovery in their provinces, to create jobs, to create investment?

Those are the fundamentals. The member says that the $6 billion would be better spent on affordable housing. Six billion dollars pales in comparison to the creation of 500,000 to 600,000 jobs in the province of Ontario.