Shawn Murphy

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those comments, but I will give him some things to think about.

We as a country kicked out the Conservative government in 1993. What was the debt then? It was $43 billion. There is another thing to think about. What was the unemployment rate then? It was 12%. What were the interest rates then? They were 11%. What was the debt to GDP ratio? It was 71%. I have this almost down to the minute. If that government were to have stayed in power for another 30 minutes, we would have been bankrupt.

I am surprised that a member from Atlantic Canada would talk like that because if the motion were ever allowed to pass, and I assume the member will not vote for it, it would strip the federal government of all power it had to deal with issues like health care and equalization. Every province would be on its own. We would lose the strong federal central government and Atlantic Canada would be out to sea.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the hon. member has a question he will address it to me after.

In supporting the provinces the government transfers federal funds directly to Canadians. This is done through old age security, the child tax benefit and the Canada pension plan. These federal programs further improve the standard of living for Canadians living from coast to coast to coast.

A lot of the arguments that have been made here today have been policy arguments. They have been arguments about federal programs. In a lot of cases, they have been arguments about the lack of federal funding. Members do not want a decrease in the amount of federal funds going into certain programs but rather an increase in the amount of those funds. Housing was talked about as was poverty and child care.

Members have been arguing about waste and allocations vis-à-vis each separate province. The previous member spoke about the amount of research moneys going to Quebec. That is not a vertical fiscal imbalance. That is a horizontal issue between what a province is getting, for what purposes, and when. Those are policy issues that have nothing to do with the motion before the House.

If I read today's motion correctly it basically states that the federal government should transfer, with no strings attached, moneys to the provinces with no horizontal issues at all. I fail to see how anyone from Atlantic Canada could support this type of motion which would take away all the federal government levers to impose some of the horizontal issues that we are trying to impose right now.

I want to repeat something I alluded to earlier. Provinces have the very same taxing powers as the federal government to tax resources, consumption, corporate wealth, corporate income, personal income, property taxes and payroll taxes if they need those funds to provide services to their citizens.

There is a fiscal imbalance and that probably goes back to when our country was formed in 1867. This level of government did not exist in the same state as it exists right now with our cities and municipalities. That fiscal imbalance has evolved over the years. It is my belief that right now our cities in Canada do not have the fiscal capacity to provide the services that their residents need.

I am not going to suggest here for a minute that the federal government is going to solve that issue. The program that was laid out in the Speech from the Throne will go a short way toward helping to resolve the issue of fiscal imbalance, but that will require further dialogue between the federal government, the provincial governments and the cities.

As I said before, I am splitting my time with the member for Mississauga--Streetsville. I would ask everyone in the House to think about the motion, think about its repercussions for our federation, think about its repercussions for the people living in the regions, and vote against the motion.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of discussion is taking place in the House and in the media right now regarding the fiscal pressures of the provinces and federal transfers. There is no question that these issues are very important to the governments of each of our 10 Canadian provinces and to all Canadians right across the country.

It is for that reason that we must be very clear when we use the term fiscal imbalance. I believe it is being confused with the whole term of horizontal fiscal imbalance, which does exist between the provinces. The government has been dealing with that issue very aggressively by ensuring all Canadians have access to equitable essential services. To do that the federal government contributes significant amounts to the provinces, including the province of Quebec, allowing them to better fund their provincial responsibilities.

However there is a significant difference from what is being proposed in the motion. What the motion suggests is that there is a vertical imbalance between the federal government and the provincial government. Simply put, this is not the case and cannot be the case under our present Constitution.

When the country was formed in 1867, certain powers were devolved to the federal government, such as defence, fisheries and oceans, and certain powers and responsibilities were devolved to the provinces, such as health and education. I will admit that in recent years a lot of the areas of the fastest growing responsibility are those areas under provincial responsibility.

However the important point that is being lost in this whole discussion is that under our Constitution the provinces and the dominion basically have the same taxing powers. If the provinces want to tax corporate income they can do so. It is the same for the federal government. Both levels of government can tax personal income, impose capital tax and impose taxes on consumption. In fact when we look at it, the taxing powers of the provinces are greater. They have lottery revenue and property taxes, but again, that is not a significant item for this debate.

In Canada, both the federal and provincial governments have access to all major sources of revenue. If the federal government and the provincial government can access the same tax bases, it is impossible to see how a vertical fiscal imbalance can exist.

The example I gave in a question to the previous speaker was that the federal government, whether it was right or wrong, decreased corporate and personal taxes over the past five years. If any of the 10 provinces wish, in their wisdom, to raise taxes they can do so. One can make the argument that taxes are too high, that federal taxes are too high or that provincial taxes are too high, but that is a policy issue. It has nothing to do with the whole concept of fiscal imbalance. There is no limit to the taxing power of any province.

Still, from province to province there are significant differences as to how much revenue they can potentially generate. That is where the imbalance exists, but that is a horizontal imbalance, which I suggest is being addressed very adequately by evolving federal programs. One clear example of this is the new health care deal which will see billions of federal dollars going to the provinces for improving health care across the country. As well, the government recently announced a new framework that will increase the support provided to provinces through equalization programs by $33 billion over the next 10 years.

The new equalization framework will provide predictability, stability and increased funding, all aimed at decreasing the horizontal fiscal imbalance that exists between provinces.

There are further programs that target areas of inequity such as child care, early childhood education, money for post-secondary education, cities and infrastructure. These plans have been developed in the framework of fiscal responsibility--

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not agree with everything the member said, I certainly was impressed with the way he presented his argument.

I listened intently to the argument and it seems to me that the member is still confusing fiscal imbalance with government policy. He made the statement that the federal government, whether it was good luck, good management or inaccurate forecasting, had a $9 billion surplus and it did not know what to do with it. The government, of course, paid down the debt, which I certainly support.

I want to point out to the hon. member, as he pointed out to the House, that the government has paid down approximately $60 million in debt over the last seven years. As anyone who has been here for a few years knows, when the previous government was in power at the end of 1993, debt was accumulating at the rate of $3.5 billion a month. We have seen what can happen when a government loses the fiscal and monetary policies at its disposal.

I want to point out to the hon. member that at present, and this is a fiscal imbalance, the accumulated debt of the federal government is $501 billion and the accumulated debt of all 10 provinces is $281 billion. That is a very serious imbalance, although I do not refer to it as a fiscal imbalance.

When the member talks about our policy, he makes the arguments, and they are good arguments, although I do not support them, that federal taxes are too high and that the government should not be as involved in some of the horizontal issues, such as health care, child care and infrastructure, as it is. However that does not support the proposition that the federal government should transfer large sums of money to the provinces.

Over the past five years we have had a situation in this country where the federal government has lowered taxes considerably for every person in Canada, including the people who reside in the province of Quebec. If the province of Quebec needed more money, as in any other Canadian province, why did it not just fill the vacuum by raising taxes so it could provide the services for the people who live in Quebec?

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth who indicated, first, that the NDP would support the motion. I listened to his rationale and I did not get anything in it that gave any reasons why the motion would be supported. It is my understanding that the motion calls for a transfer of moneys from the federal government to the provincial government. Each level of government would have its own responsibilities and would have the capacity to tax basically on the same levels.

To give an example, the federal government over the last five years reduced taxes by approximately $100 billion. Every provincial government could have filled the vacuum if they had wanted to so. In the province that my learned friend comes from, Ontario, what did it do? It lowered taxes. How would the pass of this motion five years ago have any effect? My learned friend does raise a very good point. There is a fiscal imbalance in Canada between the provincial and the federal governments on the one hand and the municipalities on the other. That goes back to our history. Municipalities do not have the taxing power to fulfill the needs that they are required to do.

If we pass the motion, if money were given to the provinces, how would it help homelessness, or students, or the environment or child care? I listened, but I do not understand the rationale behind the member's argument.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree totally with the assertion just made by the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. There have been tremendous efforts and I will repeat some of them.

There is the substantial presence of the at sea monitoring; the substantial increase in air surveillance of the whole Grand Banks area; the signing by Canada of the United Nations law of the sea last November; the signing by the European Union of the United Nations convention on highly migratory and straddling stocks; the diplomatic efforts; the address to the United Nations; and the list goes on and on. The hon. member knows full well that results are being achieved. The number of incidents of foreign overfishing has decreased significantly over the last year and that level of decreases will continue to happen.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to address the concerns raised by the hon. member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl.

At the centre of this evening's debate is the member's concern with overfishing in international waters off the Atlantic Ocean and outside Canada's 200 mile limit, specifically as it affects the conservation and rebuilding of straddling fish stocks on the Grand Banks.

Let me state clearly that I share the concerns of the hon. member. Let me state also that the minister shares his concerns. Let me state also that the Prime Minister shares his concerns. All Canadians share the member's concerns regarding this issue.

We recognize that overfishing is destroying fish stocks around the world, threatening the health of ocean ecosystems and damaging the economies of coastal communities right around the world. That is precisely why the Government of Canada took important steps this year to put an end to illegal fishing practices in the high seas starting with the Grand Banks.

This war has been fought on a number of fronts. We enhanced at sea surveillance and strengthened our inspection and enforcement measures. We increased diplomatic efforts. We began looking at ways to address the problem in a more permanent way through governance changes.

I submit that these efforts are reaping results. We are seeing real and significant progress in curbing illegal fishing activities in this area. I know the hon. member for St. John's South--Pearl Harbour does not agree with that but the statistics do not support his submission whatsoever.

Expanding patrol presence and vessel boardings on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks was a key first step to the strategy. About 150 vessel boardings have taken place in the last five and a half months and seven citations have been issued by Canadian inspectors. Now there is a significant decrease in the number of foreign groundfish vessels fishing in the Grand Banks. Vessels have moved to other waters.

Our goal of ending overfishing is being achieved, although we are not there yet. I agree with the hon. member that we have many miles to travel but we have certainly accomplished a lot over the last short period of time.

The message is clear to vessel owners and crews: overfishing will not be tolerated by Canada. We must remain vigilant. We will continue to exercise enforcement measures as permitted by international law because they have proven to be successful.

I want to reiterate the actions taken by our Prime Minister on this whole issue. He certainly has made this a major priority by his actions. I believe every time he gets on a plane and the plane is headed across the Atlantic Ocean, this is the number one concern on his mind.

He has addressed the United Nations on this very issue. He has met with the president of France. He has met with the president of Spain. He has met with the president of Portugal. He has met with the president of Russia. This has been the first item at all these meetings. He has put tremendous pressure on everyone. I believe we are going to see further efforts besides the United Nations at other international fora such as the G-8.

These diplomatic efforts are achieving results. Spain, for example, is showing a real willingness to work with Canada to end illegal fishing practices.

A lot of work has been done. We are making significant real progress. Our approach is working.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member on his recent election and welcome him to the House.

My question concerns the whole area of the economic summits and the meetings the member organized. I would ask him to elaborate on how these meetings came about, how they are structured, what is on the agenda and what the member intends to accomplish. I think it is an excellent idea and I congratulate the member. Could he take this opportunity to elaborate a little more on this initiative?

[Prince Edward Island Marathon, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to share news of the BMO Nesbitt Burns Prince Edward Island marathon which will be taking place this weekend on Prince Edward Island.

With a whole host of events planned around the full marathon, including the half-marathon, a kids' run, and my personal favourite, the kilted run, the festivities will promote the importance of physical activity and healthy living.

With over 650 runners from all across Canada and the United States expected at this weekend's event, the Prince Edward Island marathon promises to be a resounding success. It will once again showcase our beautiful province as an ideal location for conferences and events from all over the world.

I ask all members to join me in offering my congratulations to the organizers of the Prince Edward Island marathon and in wishing good luck to the runners this weekend.

[Criminal Code, October 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. In particular, Bill C-2 enhances the protection of children and other vulnerable persons, those most in need of strong, effective and efficient legal protection.

Bill C-2 supports the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to crack down on child pornography. Its proposed criminal law reforms will strengthen child pornography and sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code, create a new category of sexual exploitation, facilitate testimony by children and other vulnerable victims and, finally, create new voyeurism offences.

In the area of anti-child pornography legislation Bill C-2 builds on the Criminal Code's existing comprehensive prohibitions against child pornography and proposes several new components. These include broadening the definition of child pornography in terms of written material, as well as including audio formats.

Bill C-2 introduces prohibitions on advertising child pornography and will increase the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences on summary conviction from 6 to 18 months. This sends a strong message that no child pornography offence is considered to be a minor offence. I believe that message has to be clear, it has to be consistent, and it has to be enforced.

Bill C-2 addresses the very contentious issue--and we have just heard the passionate remarks of the hon. member for Wild Rose--about the existing defences such as artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good, with a two-pronged, harm based legitimate purpose defence which puts the interests of the children at the forefront where it should be.

This proposed child pornography defence provides a much narrower and much clearer test, and incorporates the harm based standard used by the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the existing child pornography provisions in 2001.

Bill C-2 proposes the creation of a new prohibition to better protect youth against sexual exploitation. Under the new prohibition courts will be looking to the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including specific indicators of exploitation, such as the age of the young person, the age of the accused, and the degree of control or influence exercised over that young person. In this way Bill C-2 focuses on the wrongful behaviour of the accused rather than the so-called consent of the young person.

Bill C-2 proposes significant reforms to ensure that sentencing in cases involving the abuse and sexual exploitation of children better reflects the serious nature of such crimes. The message we want to send and the message we must send is that these sorts of depraved actions will not be tolerated by Canadian society.

It is my view that the other factors that are normally considered in a sentencing application, such as the rehabilitation of the offender and retribution, have to give way. They have to give way to protection of the public and the compulsion of society to send a very clear message that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

In order to best investigate these sorts of crimes, Bill C-2 proposes reforms that will facilitate the receipt of testimony by providing greater clarity and consistency for witnesses under the age of 18 years, victims in criminal harassment cases and other vulnerable witnesses. This, as many court cases have set out, is a very difficult and contentious issue.

It is my submission that the rules have to be very clear and standardized, and the use of technology must also be implemented, especially in camera hearings for younger children.

At all times the reforms are aimed at aiding and protecting those witnesses who are deemed vulnerable, for example, broadening publication bands to include new technology such as the Internet. This is an important step to protect the identify of all victims.

I do not want to stand here and suggest for a minute that the new legislation will be able to weather its challenges. Technology is moving at a tremendous pace. When we were dealing with child pornography not that many years ago, we were dealing mainly with printed material. Now we are dealing mainly with the Internet.

When we were dealing with the offence of voyeurism, we were mainly dealing with the person who was normally referred to as a peeping Tom. We now have all kinds of technology and gadgets, such as hidden cameras and cameras half the size of a pen. These are items with which police and investigative authorities have to deal. We can appreciate the challenges that enforcement officials have every day in dealing with this type of behaviour.

Compounded with that is the whole area of the Internet servers, which are not, as everyone who has investigated this type of offence, generally located within this jurisdiction. They are in other jurisdictions around the world which adds a whole area of complexity to investigation, enforcement, prosecution and sanctions.

For all witnesses, and the measures taken to protect their well-being and identity, it has to be left to the court just like every other case to determine the weight that is to be given the evidence at the end of the day.

The proposed creation of two new voyeurism offences is also noteworthy. By setting up prohibiting factors for the secret observation and recording of a person, the bill sets up protection against a voyeuristic exploitation for all Canadians.

I have covered rather broadly some of the main proposals of Bill C-2. It is clear that these reforms are not only valuable, they are necessary. The bill will be referred to a committee. It is a topic that a lot of people in the House and a lot of Canadians from coast to coast to coast feel very strongly about. I have no question that the bill will be improved in committee and come back before the House.

I would like to join with my colleagues in the House who have spoken to voice my support for the reforms proposed by the bill. Children and other vulnerable persons are those who need the protection the most. Bill C-2 recognizes that and proposes solid legislation to provide the much needed protection.