36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 26
CONTENTS
Monday, November 3, 1997
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 104
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1140
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1155
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1200
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-3. Consideration resumed of motion
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1205
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1230
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1235
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1300
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1305
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1310
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1315
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1320
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1345
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SICKLE CELL DISEASE
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dan McTeague |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LLOYD LOCKERBY
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARISH OF SAINTE-MONIQUE-LES-SAULES
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1405
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KELOWNA TOY RUN
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KLAUS WOERNER
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ST-FRANÇOIS-DE-SALES PARISH CHURCH
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMISSION DE TOPONYMIE DU QUÉBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN POLICY
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1410
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE MINER COMPANY
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
1415
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPUTER SYSTEMS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1425
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1430
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEFICIT REDUCTION
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1435
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT SPENDING
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN INVESTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1440
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIA
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND MINES
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1445
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PASSPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1455
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1500
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1505
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1515
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1520
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1525
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1530
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-270. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM'S TERRITORIAL PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-271. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1535
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-272. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pay Equity
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-12. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1540
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1545
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1625
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1630
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1635
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1640
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1655
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Deficit Reduction
|
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1700
![V](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1705
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 26
![](/web/20061116184417im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 3, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Employment Equity Act
should be repealed since it is costly, unnecessary, and in
contravention of the merit principle with respect to hiring and
promotion.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on
Motion No. 104 which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Employment Equity Act
should be repealed since it is costly, unnecessary, and in
contravention of the merit principle with respect to hiring and
promotion.
As the House is aware, the Employment Equity Act applies to the
public service, crown corporations and federally regulated
employers that have 100 employees or more. The act's stated
purpose is to achieve equality in the workplace and to correct
conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups.
However, the assumption that conditions of disadvantage exist
has not been established and in fact there is evidence to the
contrary. Therefore, my first point is that the act is
unnecessary and should be repealed based on the following
evidence.
A study entitled New Faces in the Crowd was published by the
Economic Council of Canada in 1991. The study concluded that in
the Canadian workplace there is no observable tendency to
discriminate against minorities.
In the summer of 1995 Stats Canada reported that minorities were
just as likely to be employed as anyone in professional
occupations. Stats Canada also stated that minorities enjoy
rates of employment and wages similar to that of other Canadians.
This flies in the face of complaints by special interest groups
that minorities experience discrimination in the workplace. These
special interest groups argue that statutes, such as this act,
are necessary to ensure that the workplace reflects the
composition of Canadian society.
However, the special interest groups are wrong because the truth
is that the workplace reflects the make-up of our society.
According to 1995 data, visible minorities occupy 8% of jobs
covered under this act while they comprise 9% of the total
workforce. Furthermore, women hold 45% of the jobs covered under
this act and they constitute exactly 45% of the workforce.
Therefore, since conditions of disadvantage do not exist, as the
special interest groups have attempted to lead us to believe, we
must question the necessity of this act.
I would also like to point out that while we can count on the
information and the statistics from Stats Canada as being
accurate, the information which has been gathered under this act
is not. The statistics gathered under this act are unreliable
because the act relies on self-identification. People identify
themselves as a member of one of four designated disadvantaged
groups.
The Stentor group, while testifying before the Standing
Committee on Human Rights on Bill C-64, the Employment Equity
Act, stated “Employee data collected by means of the
self-identification process is unreliable”. Therefore, even
supporters of this act cannot bring forward any reliable data
that indicates what impact, if any, this act has had, is having
or will have.
1110
It seems that this flawed act is not about bringing equity to
the workforce but rather about bringing particular interest
groups into the government tent. If there is one thing that this
Liberal government knows how to do, it is to pander for votes.
Unfortunately, this legacy of pandering and catering to special
interest groups comes at a very significant cost to the Canadian
taxpayer. The Employment Equity Act is no exception. In 1992
the Conference Board of Canada conducted a survey of companies to
determine the cost of employment equity legislation.
When preparing our minority report on Bill C-64, Reformers
obtained the assistance of the Library of Parliament in
extrapolating the findings of the Conference Board of Canada to
cover all Canadian businesses with 50 or more employees. We
determined that if all these businesses were subject to the
Employment Equity Act, the total annual direct costs would be $1
billion. While it is not possible to give an exact figure, there
is no doubt that a very significant cost is associated with
complying with this act.
Furthermore, the government has employment equity branches in
both the Department of Human Resources Development and Treasury
Board. Each department writes an annual report on the progress
of employment equity measures within the public service and
within federally regulated firms.
Repealing the act would not only eliminate these branches of the
bureaucracy but it would also eliminate a lot of costs and a lot
of red tape which federally regulated companies must now face in
order to comply with the act.
When I appeared before the subcommittee, there was a bit of
confusion about what the process was supposed to be because its
members had a guideline that was to be followed when I made my
presentation, whether this should be deemed votable or not.
Because there was confusion about what kind of information they
required, it was deemed not votable. I was told afterward that
there was some regret about that. Considering the amount of
interest that exists concerning this motion, I seek the unanimous
consent of the House to have this motion deemed votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt has asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to have his motion deemed votable. Does the House give its
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate. My
final and most important point is that we must consider what
impact this act has on the concept of the merit principle, that
the best person for the job gets hired or promoted.
All Canadians support the merit principle, but the Employment
Equity Act is a direct assault on that principle. The result of
this act is not to promote or to hire the best person for the job
but to promote or hire people based on their race or their sex.
The merit principle takes a back seat.
Employment equity is about placing qualifications second and
putting race and gender upfront in order to meet quotas. The
government will say that there are no quotas, that there are just
numerical targets but numerical targets are quotas. Let there be
no mistake.
I would suggest that a majority of Canadians believe that this
is wrong. Furthermore, the merit principle is not only
disregarded through hiring and promotion, it is also of secondary
concern when companies downsize as a result of this act.
The CBC stated in the Employment Equity Act 1996 report that it
had retention strategies for designated group numbers during
workforce reduction. In short, the CBC already has plans on how
to lay off certain employees while keeping others based solely on
their appearance. Incredible but true.
The most recent attack on the merit principle has come from the
RCMP.
They have announced their intention to relax the physical
abilities test because too many women were failing the test.
They have no choice but to change the test because the Employment
Equity Act says that they must hire more women and more visible
minorities.
1115
The RCMP says the physical test is meant to simulate something a
police officer may be called upon to do, such as chase a suspect
or carry an injured victim from an accident scene. These job
requirements go out the window now because of this Employment
Equity Act.
It no longer matters if you can do the job. It no longer
matters if public safety is threatened. It no longer matters if
lives are lost because unqualified officers are on the force.
All that matters now is whether you have met your quota.
Government says “Give us a head count. Do not give us excuses
about safety or competence or anything like that. We just want a
head count”. That is wrong.
There are those who would argue that repeal of this act will
open the door to discriminatory practices and particular groups
in Canada will be left without protection. That is simply not
true.
Every Canadian has access to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission if they have been discriminated against in any way.
Furthermore the Public Service Employment Act states at section
12(3) that “the commission shall not discriminate in its
selection process”.
These effective but passive measures that offer protection from
discrimination are not satisfactory to the social engineers here
in Ottawa. They need active measures like quotas which have been
established under the Employment Equity Act. Under this act
quotas are paramount and the merit principle becomes secondary
when it comes to hiring, firing and promoting. That is why it
must be repealed and that is why I brought forward Motion 104.
This act sets people apart based on their appearance. The
effect of this act is that based on your appearance, you must be
hired, promoted or retained. Is that the way to promote equity
in the workplace? I think not.
This act stigmatizes people. It categorizes them as victims and
it falsely tells them government is their saviour. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
Canadians support the merit principle and special treatment for
none. That is why I encourage all members of this House to speak
in favour of this motion.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
never have dreamed that the day would come when I would have to
argue on the relevance of the Employment Equity Act.
To begin with a brief historical review, the Employment Equity
Act was assented to in December 1995, and became law in October
1996. It reinforced and replaced another act with the same name,
passed in 1986. We can, therefore, say that we have had employment
equity legislation for about 10 years. That said, I would like to
point out that Canada was behind the times, even when the first
legislation was passed, when it came to concrete measures in this
area.
Let us recall that the purpose of the legislation was “to
achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be
denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated
to ability”. It tends to correct the conditions of disadvantage in
employment experienced by four designated groups: women, aboriginal
peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible
minorities.
The act applies to private sector employers who are under
federal regulation, Crown agencies with fewer than 100 employees,
and the public service. The main sectors affected are banks,
communications, and international and interprovincial
transportation.
The tabling in 1984 of the report of the Abella commission on
employment equity laid the foundations for the present equity
policies.
The Abella Report spoke, among other things, of the need to pass
special measures to guarantee everyone equal opportunity,
regardless of their sex, race, ethnic origin or handicap.
The figures available indicate that the legislation is
producing results. Experts agree that the gap is beginning to
close. Although the percentage increase is small, we can see a
stronger representation of all the groups. Some gains cannot be
denied, including those made by women and by visible minorities in
the private sector. The act has not produced the same results
across the board, but progress has been noted.
Obviously, the public service is not yet a totally equitable
workplace for all of the four designated groups.
Clearly there is quite a way to go yet. One thing is for sure,
however. We will not improve things by revoking the act.
1120
I would like to quote the latest annual report of the Human
Rights Commission, which states, and I quote:
The notions of employment equity and equal pay for work of equal
value are not some bureaucratic add-ons to our
anti-discrimination laws; they are among the most effective
proofs that we mean what we say where equality and fairness are
concerned.
What party in this House can boast of not defending a notion
as fundamental as that of equality? I would remind you that
equality does not involve only healthy white men. No way. The
dictionary defines equality as the enjoyment of equal rights and
equality before the law. Equality is a fundamental principle in
any self-respecting society. This principle must be more than just
wishful thinking; it must be accompanied by specific measures, and
the Employment Equity Act is one such measure.
According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the
combination of programs and initiatives can produce significant
results. Furthermore, beyond the legislation, there are things
like public awareness, vigilance and most importantly agreement by
all representatives of the people on the need to ensure fair access
to work.
Each and every one of us in this House represents women, aboriginal
peoples, visible minorities and people with disabilities, too. This
motion's sponsor seems to think that the act was designed to replace one
form of discrimination by another, when it was in fact designed to
correct injustices in employment at the federal level. In addition,
there is no mention anywhere in this act of imposed quotas.
I would like to quote from a speech made in October 1995 by a
member of the Reform Party at third reading of Bill C-64 on employment
equity, a bill which his party opposed.
Speaking on the principle of the bill, the hon. member stated, and
I quote:
The foundation is that somehow or other Canadians are a mean,
regressive, racist, discriminating people. Canadians are nothing of
the sort.
We are not like that. No such discrimination exists in the
workplace.
Either this is naivety, pure and simple, or they are completely
denying the problem and hiding their heads in the sand. Take your pick.
If there is any member who believes that no such discrimination exists
in the workplace, I suggest he take off his tie, put on a skirt and then
try to get a job when an employer has a choice between him and an
equally skilled guy wearing a tie. Good luck and welcome to the real
world.
I wonder what gives this motion's sponsor the right to contravene
as fundamental a principle as equity, and particularly to go against the
advice of stakeholders and experts who agree that concrete action is
necessary.
I know that the Reform Party thinks the market, not the government,
should determine how things work in the workplace. It is a matter of
ideology. On the other hand, he cannot be against the purpose of equal
treatment, which is what this act is all about. I do hope each and every
one of us is in favour of equity, and that we only differ on the means
of achieving it.
Of course, this kind of motion does not come as a surprise from a
party that wrote in its program that a Reform government would put an
end to federal affirmative action and employment equity programs. That
is outrageous. I am surprised however at their lack of imagination,
since an almost identical motion was presented by the same party on May
30, 1995. What imagination!
To conclude my comments against the notion that the Employment
Equity Act is costly, unnecessary and in contravention of the merit
principle with respect to hiring, let me stress that the act is a
protective measure against systematic discrimination. We must be
proactive.
How can it be claimed that an act is unnecessary when even the
Canadian Human Rights Commission says the contrary? How can it be said
it is costly when it gives one of society's poorest segments fair access
to employment? And how can it be claimed that it contravenes the merit
principle with respect to hiring when it expressly applies to people
with equal skills?
Beyond the numbers, there is the human factor. For many if not most
people, work is much more than a way to earn a living. It is a way to
realize their potential and improve their self-esteem.
Dignity is priceless.
Hon. members should remember that to be tolerant is to respect
differences.
1125
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding Motion
No. M-104 proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
This motion advocates that the Employment Equity Act should be
repealed since it is costly, unnecessary and in contravention of
the merit principle with respect to hiring and promotion. The
Employment Equity Act is an act which embodies the principles of
fairness, justice and equality for all, an act which is a beacon
to disadvantaged groups in our society.
First I will point out that the Employment Equity Act has its
foundation in the Constitution of this country. In 1982 the
charter of rights and freedoms constitutionally affirmed the
right to equality in employment. Canadians believe in fairness.
This is why our Constitution enshrines the fundamental right to
equality for all. Canadians believe in giving a helping hand to
those who need it. This is why section 15(2) of the charter
clearly sanctions the creation of laws, programs and activities
designed to improve the condition of disadvantaged groups which
is what employment equity does.
Equity means fairness and that is exactly what this legislation
is all about. Fairness in employment means the removal of
barriers to real equality of opportunity in the workplace.
Fairness in employment means a workplace where differences are
respected, valued and accommodated, not penalized. Fairness in
employment means a workplace where individual talents and
abilities are given the opportunity to grow, where they are
utilized to their fullest. Fairness in employment means hiring
based on ability to do the job, not on outmoded and false
stereotypes which have been hurdles to real equality of
opportunity for much too long.
The intent of this act is not to provide preferential treatment.
It is designed to ensure equal access to opportunities for all
qualified Canadians regardless of their race, physical attributes
or gender. It is about removing, not erecting barriers to
employment.
The act was not created overnight. It was a product of a
comprehensive review of the Canadian workplace in 1984 by the
Royal Commission on Equality in Employment headed by Judge
Rosalie Abella. In the course of its review the commission
looked closely at affirmative action programs in the United
States. Canadian commissioners wanted to learn from the American
experience in order to avoid some of the problems associated with
that legislation.
Judge Abella quite correctly concluded that Canadians would
resist the American approach given its overly interventionist
government policies and the imposition of quotas. She recommended
instead that Canadians adopt the employment equity model which
focuses on the elimination of discriminatory employment barriers.
Our approach to achieve equality is far more progressive than
the American model. It has led to greater partnerships among
groups pursuing fair access to employment opportunities and has
also led to far greater success. For example, often workers,
union leaders and employers will work together in unison to
establish a fair equity plan. In this way employment equity
works as much to the advantage of employers as it does for the
members of the designated groups. Organizations that take
advantage of and capitalize upon the rich composition of Canadian
society will come out ahead, way ahead.
Employment equity policies exist in this country because they
are needed. I wish this were not so. I wish we could say that
equality of opportunity is already a reality in our society, that
nobody is denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons
unrelated to their ability, but we know that unfortunately this
is not yet the case.
Statistics show very clearly that certain groups in our society
continue to experience significant disadvantage in employment.
1130
The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt knows as well as I do that
unemployment rates among aboriginal people and persons with
disabilities are way beyond acceptable levels.
Women and members of visible minorities tend to be concentrated
in lower paying jobs with fewer chances for advancement. About
two-thirds of the women in the workforce covered by the
Employment Equity Act are employed in clerical work. Members of
visible minorities represent only a small proportion of upper
level management positions. Aboriginal men and women earn
substantially less than other employees.
Let there be no doubt, this legislation is in response to a
social need.
Since 1990 two parliamentary committees have studied our
employment equity legislation. It is highly significant that
both committees have recommended strengthening the legislation,
not discarding it.
This is not surprising. Employment equity represents a win-win
solution which will benefit all Canadians, not just members of
designated groups. Employment equity promotes sound human
resource practices.
The record shows that employers support this legislation and
realize that it is good for business. During parliamentary
committee hearings on this legislation in 1995 numerous business
organizations testified that employment equity means good
business sense. For example, the executive vice-president for
human resources of the Canadian Bankers Association told the
parliamentary committee: “We think employment equity not only
had a positive impact on the way our organizations manage their
workforces, but also it has proven to be good for our business”.
The vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia
declared:
In our experience, successful businesses implement employment
equity programs because it makes good business sense, not because
of some legislative compulsion. With an increasingly global or
international marketplace, smart businesses have workforces that
are reflective of their marketplaces. It's no longer a moral
issue; it is now a strategic issue.
The point is simply that the Employment Equity Act is very much
in sync with the views and attitudes of the progressive employers
in this country who do not see it as onerous or costly. Quite
the contrary, these employers know very well that a diverse
workforce representative of their community gives them an
enormous boost in their efforts to remain competitive.
Despite the claims made by the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Humboldt, fairness in employment need not be too
costly. For example, a recent study done in the United States by
the Job Accommodation Network revealed that when companies made
adjustments in the workplace to assist persons with disabilities,
the cost to the employer was less than $500 in more than 70% of
the cases.
Even more compelling is the fact that the return of the company
averaged more than $28 for every dollar spent on such
accommodation.
All these considerations serve to bear out the premise of Robert
Reich, former U.S. secretary of labour, who said social justice
is not incompatible with economic growth, but essential to it.
What about the merit principle? Is employment equity indeed in
conflict with merit, as the Reform Party would have us believe?
This is perhaps the most baffling of the allegations made by the
member. A simple reading of the legislation itself ought to
clear up such misconceptions.
Two separate provisions in the act expressly protect the merit
principle and clearly state that employment equity does not mean
hiring or promoting unqualified persons.
Far from being in conflict with the merit principle, employment
equity is in fact a commitment to merit, as echoed in the title
of the 1990 report of the parliamentary committee which studied
this legislation. The notion that employment equity is in—
1135
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member's time
has expired. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dartmouth.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to speak out against the motion on the floor to abolish the
Employment Equity Act.
I believe it is time to strengthen the Employment Equity Act,
not dismantle it. In a statement in the House a month ago I drew
attention to the fact that the number of persons with
disabilities working for the government today is lower than it
was 10 years ago. We have over four million disabled persons in
this country and over two million have no work. A shamefully
small number of them work for the federal government.
Employment equity legislation needs to be strengthened. It
is time shore up our employment equity legislation and not rip
the guts out of it, which is being recommended in this motion
today.
The reason behind employment equity legislation is simple. The
legislation covers those people from groups which have been
historically denied equal job opportunities of a result of
discriminatory practices.
Who are these people and groups we are talking about? Let us
start with black Nova Scotians, many of whom I have the privilege
of representing here. It is no secret where I come from that
black Nova Scotians have been excluded for centuries from
educational and job opportunities. They have been segregated in
coloured only schools. They have been allocated leftover land.
They have had their traditional homestead of Africville bulldozed
for development. They have watched generations of their children
come up against stonewalls in the workplace and school settings.
Preston and East Preston, two dynamic and fiercely proud black
Nova Scotian communities, face unemployment rates of over 60%.
The recent events occurring at Cole Harbour school in my riding
indicate how far we still have to go in terms of living in a
community where everyone feels welcome and on equal footing.
These are the people who have been historically denied equal job
opportunities because of discrimination.
Native people in Canada still face the highest unemployment
rate, the highest suicide rate, the highest incarceration rate of
any population in the country. Centuries of racial
discrimination in government and church policy of assimilation
have robbed native people of their language, their religion and
their heritage. It is an incredible tribute to the strength of
their culture and their traditions that they are still out there
fighting for equity, for self-government, for the right to have a
say in the way this country is shaped. These are people who have
been historically denied job opportunities because of
discrimination.
I think it is time to challenge those people out there who want
to ditch employment equity. These are the kind of comments I
hear from them: “I do not think our customers would relate to
him very well, he has a bit of an accent”, or “our corridors
would be a bit crowed with a wheelchair and she probably hates
being in people's way”.
There are a thousand and one excuses for not considering, never
mind hiring, members of under represented groups for jobs.
Employment equity bashers usually start out with “just for the
record I am not racist or sexist but—”. Employment equity
bashers usually say this at the outset to comfort their
listeners. Yet those words are never motive free. Nor merely by
being uttered do they make tirades against employment equity
credible, logical or fair. Anybody can claim not to be prejudice
but it takes courage to examine our deep seeded biases. Only
then do we know how completely we have bought into the sterotypes
and patterns that make systemic racism.
I am sure members have heard “our company needs to stay
competitive and it cannot do that if employment equity promotes
mediocrity by raising incompetents beyond their abilities”. Any
good employment equity law is based on the principles of merit
first. Qualified applicants who belong to under represented
groups bring an additional qualification to the job. They bring
diverse skills that discrimination would prevent employers from
even considering.
I am sure members have heard “designating people does not help
them, it becomes reverse discrimination and stigmatises them”.
Let us look at that.
1140
Take women, for example. I think we are averaging about 52% of
the population right now, hardly a special interest group. Far
from reversing discrimination, employment equity reversed long
standing injustices like the fact that even though women account
for two-thirds of the labour force growth in Ontario, they are
still clustered in 20 of 500 occupations and 71% of the part time
jobs.
Then there is the fact that racial minorities have to make three
times as many applications as white people to get one interview.
Aboriginal and disabled persons face unemployment rates of 60% to
80%.
Imagine the odds stacked against someone who falls into any
combination of those categories. That is stigmatization.
I would like to quote from a member of the government's former
ranks who has now fled these northern climes to take up a
position in Boston. She addressed the other argument which is
quite prevalent, the white male argument. She said that despite
the fears of some of our colleagues in opposition, white males
get 50% of the federal government jobs. They get 60% of the jobs
nationally in the private and public sectors combined. Even
more overwhelming, white males get 90% of the promotions. With
figures like that I believe it would be safe to say, and I do not
think anyone would argue with me, the white male is not
exactly an endangered species in this economic climate.
The former member for Halifax went on to say: “I don't
understand what it is people fear from legislation that is
clearly put on the books to ensure fairness for people who have
for generations, thousands of years, been systemically
discriminated against because they are black, they are
aboriginal, they are female or disabled. Why do people fear
legislation that promotes fairness?”
There may be precious few things with which I find myself in
agreement with the former member, but this is one of them.
We cannot afford to lose the skills and abilities of this great
country's diverse population because of discrimination.
Employment equity is a program which needs to be strengthened, it
needs to be expanded.
In closing I would like to mention a couple living in my riding.
Two years ago they immigrated to Dartmouth from Sri Lanka. Both
of them are eminently qualified for work in the legal and banking
professions but they cannot even get past the door in interviews.
Instead they are trying to contribute to their community through
coaching soccer and volunteering in their children's school.
They want to be part of our community. Employment equity
legislation needs to be strengthened even further to allow them
to do that. If this wonderful family is to contribute fully to
their new home we need stronger employment equity.
It is time to strengthen employment equity, to reaffirm our
commitment to fairness and justice, not to take giant steps
backwards into the darkness.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
remind the House that the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt
introduced this motion today with regard to employment equity. I
want to let the House know that we fundamentally disagree with
some of what the member had to say, but not entirely.
Our position would be that the act does not have to be
reintroduced, nor a new act created. We have to fine tune the
existing legislation that we presently have. I think that would
be a benefit to all sides. The process that the Reform member is
suggesting is a lengthy process and could be a very expensive
process, and we disagree on that.
The other point I wish to make is with respect to the charter of
rights. The charter protects all of us, and that is something
none of us wants to lose. But it is a very lengthy process for
anyone engaged in the pay equity dispute. It is one that few of
us would ever go through to its finality. It becomes very
expensive.
In terms of the pay equity dispute presently ongoing between the
federal government and its employees I want to put a few facts on
the record. There are approximately today 190,000 public
servants who would receive the pay equity allowance.
1145
Most of the 190,000 public servants are women but they are not
the highest paid in the public service. I wanted to point that
out because if I go through the list of the six groups that
dominate the issue of pay equity, they are not the highest paid
public servants in the country. The principal groups involved
are clerks, secretaries, typists, data processors, librarians,
hospital staff, hospital service staff and educational support
staff. We are not talking about employees who make $100,000 a
year. We are basically talking about a group of people who want
fairness in the system.
We in the Conservative Party believe in equal pay for equal
value of work done. I do not think anyone would disagree with
that. Fundamentally the government simply has to open up the
dialogue among all major groups and come to the realization there
are problems that have to be addressed. I believe it should do
that.
With regard to the back pay owed to the women of Canada who are
public servants and have done their jobs for the country, they
could simply say “Yes, let us negotiate a settlement because it
will end a lengthy laborious legal process which becomes very
time consuming”.
Let us take a look at some of the numbers so we will know what
we are talking. The numbers really speak to the issue. The
offer would mean a lump sum settlement of $27,037 for the
employees involved. For the largest group, which currently makes
around $30,000 a year, the lump sum would be about $15,000 and
future annual adjustments would account for about another $2,184
a year.
When we get back to the issue of the union because there are
union people involved in the whole issue, the best thing they
could do at this point is take the issue back to the membership.
The House is the place where we debate with different points of
view various bills, motions, private members' bills and
government bills. With regard to the union, the single best
thing it could do at this point is simply refer it back to the
membership. If it goes any further than what it already has, the
delay could be counted not in months or weeks but in years.
This goes back to the fundamental reasons unions are there in
the first place: to represent their workers. In all fairness, if
they are representing their workers in the most democratic
fashion, the best thing they could do today is simply settle with
the government after consulting the membership. The membership
should decide the issue. It should be consulted.
The treasury board president was quoted on September 10 as
saying with regard to the latest offer “This is our latest
offer. It is not only generous but it is a bit more than what we
can afford”. That also has to be considered by the union. I
know some union activists to the left of me are hollering a
little loudly at this point. I do not blame them. I think they
at the end of the plank on this one. I do not think I would want
to be walking that plank now if I were a union activist.
I will repeat my statement to the member for Dartmouth. They
should take it back to the union, the membership, the people who
have been paying union dues for many years.
Getting back to the motion itself, we disagree with the Reform
member who introduced it because we do not think more legislation
or more laws are needed.
1150
Our position is simple. At present the legislation is there. We
have problems with it. They are minor in terms of what other
countries are saddled with. If we are to make changes to the law
we should identify the specific changes. Some could be brought
about by legislation, not by the introduction of a new bill.
I am pleased to have taken part in the debate today. I respect
the positions of the Reform and the NDP. However, let us examine
the issue a little more carefully to see if we can bring about
the changes through regulation. With regard to the pay equity
situation, let the unions speak.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, just
by way of comment to the previous member about letting the unions
speak, I suggest the union is representing its members. It was
chosen by its members just as we were chosen by our constituents.
On a personal note, I have spoken with many union members. The
member mentioned a figure of 27,000. Previous governments
including the Tory government of a few years back stalled the
whole process of pay equity, in spite of the fact that the human
rights commission indicated the government should be paying
fairly. That is indication that we need a strengthening of
employment equity and pay equity. When the Government of Canada
does not abide by the rules it gives businesses the option of
saying that they do not have to pay fairly for equal work.
With regard to the private member's motion, it does not take a
lot of thought to understand what Canadian businesses and the
Canadian workforce were like over the past few decades. There
were fewer women and people with disabilities in the workforce.
We have made some forward movement but we have not reached the
point where we are being entirely fair to all people in society.
All we need to do is look at the rules in place in the RCMP. It
was suggested by the member that there should not be a need for
the RCMP to relax its requirements. I ask all members to
remember when one of the requirements to join the RCMP was that a
person had to be six feet or six foot one. The member who
presented the bill would have been so vertically challenged he
would not have been able to become a member of the RCMP.
We went through great arguments in Canada over the type of hat
an RCMP member should wear because, God forbid, he would not be
able to do his job if he did not have the proper hat. I suggest
there is more to being a member of the RCMP than being able to
bench press 200 pounds. There is more involved in the job than
brawn.
Throughout history different arguments have been used for
discriminating against various groups. The time has come to
strengthen pay equity and employment equity so that there is no
discrimination.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Since this is
Private Members' Business, the hon member for Saskatoon—Humboldt
could have the opportunity, by consent of the House, to speak. He
would have five minutes and this would terminate the debate. Does
the hon. member have the consent of the House to speak?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1155
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not know when I have heard such a load of garbage in my
life. Let the record show that every party, the Conservatives,
the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, spoke against my motion. They
did not give unanimous consent to allow it to be votable because
they do not want to vote on it. They do not want the record to
show their prejudices and discriminatory views on matters.
Let us go through them one at a time. The hon. member for
Charlotte, the Conservative, said that they fundamentally
disagreed with the Reform Party. He then went on to say that
the process would be too lengthy and costly.
How could it be lengthy and costly to repeal legislation? That
would be the end of it. It is costly to let it continue the way
it is going.
Then he went into a lengthy diatribe about pay equity. He is
totally confused about the difference between the two.
Let us switch to the NDP. The member wanted to strengthen it,
make it even worse, and suggested that if somebody with an accent
came in the people who subscribe to the view that it should be
based on merit would discriminate against him.
They are the ones who are prejudiced. They are the ones who are
saying that merit or qualifications do not matter. They are
saying they have quotas to be met. That comes first. That is
primary. That is prejudice. That is discrimination.
Now they want to strengthen the legislation to enforce their
discriminatory views and ideas even further. Then they go on to
talk about merit. Talk about hypocrisy; it is complete
contradiction.
The member for Churchill railed against white males. I have a
friend living in Toronto who has been trying for six years to get
into the fire department. He cannot because he is a white male.
That is the single thing that prevents him from getting the job.
He is qualified in every other way. He was told that. Finally
he has given up and gone on to something else.
How fair is that to people forced to go down the road to another
job instead of doing what they were more qualified to do and
wanted to do but could not because of the discriminatory policies
of governments like this one? It makes me sick.
The Liberal member went on to talk about the fundamental rights
of equality for all. Why then do we have employment equity
legislation? There are no rights to equality there. That
legislation says it will look at the colour of skin, at gender
and use them to judge. Is that equality? Is that fairness? They
should get their head out of the sand and maybe have it examined.
I really want this to go on record with as much strength and
force as possible. The Reform Party is the only party standing
up for the equality of all Canadians, and Canadians ought to know
that.
The Liberal member said that he was against interventionist
measures of governments and quotas. Why does he support
employment equity legislation? That is what it is all about.
There is some degree of confusion there.
He also said that the legislation worked to the advantage of
employers. How on earth could that be the case? If I have a
federally regulated firm of over 100 employees and I am subject
to the legislation, how is it to my advantage to say to people
that I have too many with the same skin colour in the position
they are applying for? Although they are the best qualified I
have to give it to somebody else because of the colour of their
skin. That is prejudice and discrimination. It is the kind of
thing they are promoting.
Finally we move to the statements of the member from the Bloc
Quebecois. She said that Canada was behind the concrete measures
taken by other countries in this area, but there is no evidence
to back up what she is saying. She was not listening to my
speech.
I listed statistics to show there is equity already. We do not
need measures that have been legislated and rammed down the
throats of Canadians. They want us to stand in favour of
equality for all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1200
[English]
DNA IDENTIFICATION ACT
The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3
is a continuation of Bill C-104, which is now part of the
Criminal Code. That bill allowed peace officers under the
authority of a warrant to obtain a DNA sample from individuals
suspected of committing an offence under a list of offences in
the Criminal Code. Another condition in Bill C-104 is that there
must be found at the scene of a crime samples of hair, blood or
tissue that would connect an accused with the crime scene.
Bill C-94, the forerunner to this bill, was brought in too late
to be passed at the last sitting and Bill C-3 is almost identical
to that bill.
What does this bill authorize the police to do? What greater
tools are they going to have? From my understanding this bill
will allow the police to obtain DNA samples from those convicted
of a series of offences. It does not mean there is any
connection between them and a crime scene that would allow the
police to get a warrant to obtain a sample. It means that after
being convicted of one of a series of offences listed, the police
can obtain a DNA sample from those individuals.
The Canadian Police Associated, representing the front line
police officers, are very much concerned that this bill does not
go far enough. They would like to see the same application of
the DNA tool as we now have with fingerprints, that a fingerprint
can be obtained from anyone arrested for an indictable offence.
The debate on the bill is whether a proper balance is being
struck between the rights of the accused and the rights of
society as represented by law enforcement agencies charged with
the responsibility and duty to bring criminals to justice,
investigate crimes and have a sufficiently strong record in terms
of success that it would be a deterrent to those who plan and
commit premeditated acts against an individual.
The bill will go to committee and we will hear witnesses on
that. I am sure we will hear further from the Canadian Police
Association.
Bill C-104, which is now part of the Criminal Code, allowed for
the taking of three different DNA samples. One was a swab of
saliva, another was a blood test and the third was a hair sample.
The hair sample has been struck down by a superior court judge in
Ontario as being unconstitutional. Judge Casey Hill found that
forcibly removing hair is unreasonable and threatens bodily
integrity. Judge Hill went to state “Since viable alternatives
exist and the degree of uncertainty is so high, the procedure
violates the charter of rights and freedoms' guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure”.
I find this judgment confusing.
If the police are allowed to take a blood sample, which is far
more intrusive than taking a hair sample, then I do not know how
the judge can maintain the right of the police to take a blood
sample. He stated that it was unconstitutional to take a hair
sample. It is confusing to me and probably to the public as
well. Nevertheless it has been struck down at least at that
level of the Ontario court system.
1205
The government is experiencing difficulties with a number of the
laws it has brought to the House. They have been challenged or
struck down as being unconstitutional. Recently in Alberta a
judge struck down the whole of the rape shield law, not just part
of it. It followed a decision in Ontario that struck down part
of that rape shield law. Why is legislation being brought to the
House that the courts deem to be unconstitutional?
The constitutionality of Bill C-68 is being challenged by four
provinces and two territories. The conditional sentencing
portion of Bill C-41 is a real mess in the courts. Crown
prosecutors across Canada are appealing the manner in which the
courts are using that law. We are urging the government to deny
the courts the right to use that law when it comes to violent
offenders. So far the government has refused to do that yet
there are hundreds of cases where courts are allowing violent
offenders, including convicted rapists, to walk free.
Why is the justice department bringing forward laws that are
being struck down by our court? Why is the justice department
not doing its job? Tomorrow the Feeney bill, Bill C-16, will
come before the courts. The government had all summer to get
that bill ready. Now we are ramming it through against a
deadline that need not have been there if the justice officials
had done their jobs.
Perhaps if the justice officials looked after their own business
instead of interfering with the judicial independence of the
courts, as Ted Thompson did with Judge Jerome, we would have
better laws passed through this House. They would not be
successfully challenged as being unconstitutional and creating a
real problem within the justice system.
I have some concerns about the extent of this bill. Does it go
far enough? Does it provide the police with reasonable tools,
bearing in mind the balance between the rights of the accused and
the safety of society?
Does the bill go far enough? We in the Reform Party say it
ought to go further. It ought to be treated the same as the
police demanding fingerprints from those who are arrested for
indictable offences.
This will be explored further when it reaches committee. We
will be pressing the witnesses to determine where they believe
that balance should fall.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the DNA
Identification Act provides for the establishment of a national
DNA data bank to be maintained by the RCMP.
The new act authorizes the courts to force those convicted of
certain designated offences to provide biological samples for
genetic analysis. The resulting genetic profiles will be stored
in the convicted offenders index of the genetic data bank.
The data bank will include a crime index containing genetic
information collected at the scene of solved and unsolved crimes, and a
convicted offenders index containing the genetic identification profiles
of adults and teenagers convicted of specific offences under the
Criminal Code.
1210
The approach will be twofold in the case of the convicted offenders
index. Designated offences will be classified under two headings:
primary offences and secondary offences. The list of primary designated
offences will include serious violent offences including aggravated
sexual assault, which are the types of offences for which DNA evidence
can be most useful. Except under exceptional circumstances, at the time
of sentencing for this type of offence, the court will order that
samples of bodily substances be taken for the data bank.
The person found guilty of a secondary designated offence can be
ordered by the court, at the request of the crown, to provide a sample
for the data bank, if the court is satisfied that it is in the best
interests of the administration of justice to do so.
How can the creation of a national DNA data bank help the police
and the courts? Such a bank will help police forces to conduct their
investigations and will assist the authorities in identifying and
arresting more quickly individuals who commit serious offences, such as
sexual offenders and violent repeat offenders.
This will help police identify and arrest repeat offenders by
comparing DNA information found at the crime scene with the information
in the convicted offenders index. This will also help authorities
determine if a series of offences has been committed by a single person
or by more than one person.
It will help to establish links and to resolve cases involving several
jurisdictions by giving investigators access to information which
otherwise would not be available. It will also help guide investigations
by eliminating suspects whose DNA profile does not match what was found
at the crime scene. It will also dissuade offenders from committing
other crimes by increasing their chances of being arrested.
There will, however, be restrictions on access to samples and to
DNA data. Strict rules will apply to the taking of samples and to the
use and storage of biological specimens and DNA profiles. The bill
clearly states that all samples must be used only for DNA analysis and
for forensic purposes.
Access to the DNA profiles in the convicted offenders index and to
the samples will be limited strictly to those directly involved in
the normal maintenance of the DNA data bank. Only identifying
information, such as a person's name, will be communicated to
appropriate agencies, those implementing the legislation for the
purpose of investigations and proceedings resulting from criminal
charges. There are provisions for criminal penalties in order to
prevent the misuse of samples of bodily substances or DNA profiles.
Many people, in news bulletins and in the newspapers in our
region of Abitibi are asking us what DNA is. DNA stands for a
molecule known as deoxyribonucleic acid—quite a mouthful—which is
considered to be the basic unit of life, the body's genetic
fingerprint.
Humans, like animals and plants, are composed of billions of cells.
Each cell has a nucleus containing 46 chromosomes divided into 23
pairs. The DNA molecule is inherited from the father and the
mother and is present in these chromosomes. It is identical in all
the cells of all parts of the body, except in the case of identical
twins, where each has his or her own particular DNA molecule.
In the forensic context, the expression DNA analysis generally
means various techniques of molecular biology that can be used for
identification purposes in the direct analysis of specific sites on
the DNA molecule.
DNA analysis requires very little genetic material and samples
of bodily substances can be taken relatively discreetly.
1215
DNA analysis is an excellent means of comparative
identification. We are particularly familiar with its use in
identifying the perpetrators of violent crimes by comparing
biological samples taken from suspects with bodily substances left
directly or indirectly at the scene of the crime by the person who
committed it, or taken away from it by that person, for example
blood or saliva.
Since its introduction into the legal system in Canada in
1988-89, DNA analysis has led to the conviction of hundreds of
persons who have committed violent crimes, ranging from assault to
homicide. As well, it has made it possible to prove the innocence
of suspects and to exonerate and release individuals who were
already convicted. Genetic fingerprint analysis for forensic
purposes is practiced everywhere in the world.
In recent years, the U.S., Great Britain, Norway and New Zealand
have adopted legislative measures to create genetic data banks for
forensic purposes.
What is the government's strategy with respect to DNA? Prior
to July 1995, DNA evidence had been presented before Canadian
courts for some time, but there was no specific legislative
framework to govern recourse to such evidence. In order to clarify
the situations in which genetic samples could be taken as part of
a criminal investigation, legislative amendments were adopted in
July 1995, with a view to allowing the police to obtain a warrant
authorizing them to take biological samples before, during or after
a suspect's arrest.
As part of Phase II of the government's DNA strategy, a
consultation document, “Establishing a National DNA Data Bank” was
published in January 1996. The groups consulted across Canada, the
law enforcement community in particular, were strongly in favour of
the creation of a national DNA bank. A “summary of
consultations”
was released on February 28, 1997.
In closing, I must say that this is a step forward and that we
must move ahead in order to help our police officers to do their
job.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the bill before us this morning truly combines science and new
techniques, permitting a fairer society in which as many crimes as
possible will be solved.
Why do I say it is a bill that really reflects improvements in
science? It is because deoxyribonucleic acid existed all along,
but either we were not aware of it or we did not know how much it
could contribute to clearing up cases. It is better known as DNA.
For our viewers, DNA, to describe it very simply, involves the
chromosomes found in the living cells of the human body and are
like a sort of fingerprint.
Everyone has their own unique DNA, and as the member who spoke
before me said, even identical twins, triplets or quadruplets will
have different DNAs, because of their chromosomes, just as in the
case of fingerprints. In all the years they have been
fingerprinting criminals, no two individuals have been found to
have the same prints. According to science, it would never—or
at least so it appears—be possible to find two individuals with
the same DNA.
At first glance, this bill has an important function: to
modernize police techniques and use this discovery to benefit
justice.
At the outset, the Bloc supports this action. As it did in
the 35th Parliament, it will co-operate in the 36th Parliament with
the aim of producing a bill that is as effective and wide-ranging
as possible while at the same time respecting the fundamental
rights of Canadians and Quebeckers, who would have it no other way
even in the case of DNA legislation.
1220
The important thing in a bill such as this one is to achieve a
balance between the fight against crime and the respect of individual
rights and freedoms, particularly with procedures involving the
collection of bodily substances. In terms of the principle underlying
the legislation, it goes without saying that the crime rate and the
number of unsolved crimes can never be too low. The work performed by
the police deserves our attention and support, so we can help the police
be increasingly more successful in their work.
However, there is something that absolutely must be said. The
public hears all kinds of things.
DNA testing is an extremely useful tool. However, given its serious
nature—it is basically genetic fingerprinting—and given that it is
a very specific procedure, it must not lead to abuse, and police
officers must not be allowed to collect genetic samples for just about
any offence.
In this respect, the bill has the merit of providing a list of
designated offences for which ordinary people would agree that police
officers and the judicial system should be allowed to use DNA testing
and to collect samples of blood, saliva or other bodily substances from
an individual.
I will just mention a few of these offences, but there is a whole
list of them. They are all similar and have one thing in common: they
are serious offences.
They include the use of explosives, sexual touching, invitation to
sexual touching, sexual exploitation, incest, murder, homicide,
aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, torture, rape and arson. With
this very specific list of designated offences drafted by the lawmakers,
police officers will know precisely when they can collect DNA samples.
They will not be allowed to do so for just any offence or reason, but
only under very specific circumstances.
That having been said, while continuing to support this kind of
bill as we did in the past, we do have some concerns and hope that, in
committee, witnesses or the government will be able to reassure us on a
number of issues. Playing with the physical integrity of individuals and
their genetic identity may lead—and I am not saying it will
necessarily happen—to the possible misuse of this new technology.
In terms of confidentiality, this is very important. We do have
concerns about the bill as it stands right now. For instance, a question
comes to mind about the storage of bodily substances collected under the
provisions of clause 10: Why keep samples after the DNA information has
been obtained?
The police will not be working from the sample afterwards, but from the
information provided through analysis of the bodily substances.
Nevertheless, the DNA profile will be stored in one of the two data
banks: one for things found at the scene of a crime or of a designated
offence—saliva, a strand of hair, blood or whatever is found there
goes into a specific index—and another one, the offenders index, for
the DNA profiles of individuals convicted of a designated offence under
the Criminal Code.
So, why in either case, and particularly in that of the offenders
index, keep bodily substances when the DNA profile has been found and is
in the computer? I wonder what this sample will be used for?
This is not to say I am dead against it. I just want the minister or
anyone who will come before the justice and human rights committee to
answer this question, which I feel is extremely important, given how
serious this bill is, as I mentioned earlier.
1225
Another concern is the taking of samples. We should consider
whether any police officer can take such samples. There is no problem in
the case of fingerprints. Any officer with the proper training can
fingerprint anyone. However, not all police officers can take samples of
blood or saliva. I have at least three friends who are police officers
and I would never allow them to take a blood sample from me. They are
better with a gun than with a needle.
Perhaps it is in that area that the bill should be improved. It is
a bit like the people using breathalyzers at police stations. These
people have received special training.
Perhaps we should specify that only specially trained officers can take
samples.
Interestingly, section 17 of the bill stipulates that the person
required to provide a sample can choose between blood, hair or any other
bodily substance.
I have another concern for which I hope to receive a reply from the
government, and it is the communication of a DNA profile to other
countries. Of course, we can make regulations in Canada.
However, in the case of DNA information concerning a Canadian or a
Quebecker that we provide to the United States, to a European country or
to any other country, I would like to know and especially to be
reassured by the minister that the country who will be receiving this
information will treat it in the same manner that it is treated in
Canada or, in other words, that it will not be possible to do indirectly
what the law in Canada prohibits. For instance, if a sample or a DNA
profile is to be destroyed in Canada because the person was found not
guilty or for any other reason as outlined in the bill, will the United
States, for example, agree to Canada's request to also destroy that
information at the same time so that it will not come back to Canada
through a friendly country or any other country? I think the government
should also provide greater clarification in this regard.
My last point concerns the power of the RCMP commissioner to decide
how this information should be used and whether it should be made
available to other police forces throughout Canada and Quebec. The bill
should include a section requiring the commissioner to publish the name
of all those who use this information, so that everything is clear.
That being said, and since my time has run out, I wish to add that
I offer my complete cooperation to the government and to the opposition
parties so that we can work on making this bill the most practical and
the best possible for society.
[English]
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I also rise to speak on Bill C-3, the DNA identification
act. The reintroduction of this important piece of public safety
legislation speaks well about this government's commitment to
toughen the fight against crime and to protect Canadians from
criminal activity. It also shows our government has taken the
findings of our country-wide consultations on this matter very
seriously.
It is my belief that if enacted, Bill C-3 will serve two very
important functions in our justice system. First, it will give
our law enforcement agencies a valuable tool in the investigation
of certain violent crimes. Second, it will help shield the
innocent from wrongful accusation and conviction.
Bill C-3 will build on legislation passed in the last Parliament
which allows police to obtain DNA samples from suspects in
criminal investigations by the use of warrants. It calls for the
creation of a national DNA data bank which many Canadians will be
happy to know includes a convicted offenders index.
DNA samples could be obtained from those convicted of a specified
offence or who were previously convicted as dangerous offenders
and repeat sexual offenders.
1230
By sharing this information, law enforcement agencies would be
better equipped to track and bring repeat offenders to justice.
These agencies would be in a better position to quickly identify
the work of a violent criminal who, after eluding prosecution for
a criminal offence in one part of the country, might seek to
violate the peace of another part of the country by the
commission of further criminal offences.
The DNA data bank would play an invaluable role as a warehouse
of potential evidence which could be used to solve countless
unsolved crimes and put Canada's most heinous criminals behind
bars. This is so because extensive scientific research has shown
that with the exception of twins, no two people have the same
DNA. Simply put, DNA is a biological fingerprint that can be as
redemptive to the innocent as it is damning to the guilty.
Take the examples of David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin. I
believe all Canadians know of the lengthy struggles these men
mounted to restore their good names and reclaim their freedom.
Mr. Morin last week described the horrors of prison and the
heartache of being mistaken for a murderer. The case of Mr.
Milgaard who spent over 20 years in prison for a murder he did
not commit is equally moving. Yet if not for the introduction of
DNA evidence, it is likely that both of these men would still be
in prison today.
Having said this, it should also be noted that the establishment
of a national DNA bank is a delicate matter which requires
Parliament to balance issues of public safety and those of
personal privacy. I therefore applaud the solicitor general and
his predecessor for the fine work they have done in achieving
this balance.
Time does not permit detailed reference to sections of the bill,
but I will highlight the following aspects of the legislation.
Under this bill access to DNA profiles in the convicted
offenders index will be given only to those directly involved in
the operation of the data bank. These are the agencies that at
present have access to the existing criminal records database
maintained by the RCMP.
Accompanying revisions to the Criminal Code would ensure stiff
criminal penalties are assessed for any abuse of the system.
Furthermore Bill C-3 guards against abuse right at the collection
stage.
In the absence of a special warrant, only those convicted of
designated offences can be required to provide DNA samples for
forensic analysis. The right balance has been struck between
public safety and personal privacy.
Some members across the way may argue that Bill C-3 goes too far
and on the other hand not far enough, as we have already heard
today, but we are confident that most Canadians will agree with
our reasoned approach to this delicate and extremely important
matter. To all hon. members, I would ask that when deciding the
merits of the legislation, they think of the irrefutable and
unbiased nature of the science involved. Also think of the
efficiencies that will be realized in criminal data collection
and court proceedings as a result of the provisions outlined in
Bill C-3.
Most of all think of how far this legislation will go toward
strengthening the Criminal Code and ensuring the safety of all
Canadians.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill
C-3, the DNA identification act.
DNA is basically the next generation of fingerprinting. Since
1988 trial judges have allowed DNA evidence from the accused to
be introduced in several criminal prosecutions. Indeed forensic
DNA analysis has been instrumental in securing convictions in
hundreds of violent crimes and has resulted in the release of
wrongfully convicted people.
1235
During the early days of DNA evidence, there existed a vacuum in
regulating the collection and use of DNA evidence. In a number
of cases the judges even allowed DNA samples which were taken
from accused individuals who did not consent to having their DNA
collected. Organizations such as the Canadian Police Association
had warned the government that legislation would be needed to
ensure the proper and effective use of DNA evidence.
During a 1993 meeting with the then Minister of Justice and in
1994 with the solicitor general, representatives of the Canadian
Police Association raised the urgent need of updating evidence
laws to include DNA technology. Despite these warnings of the
men and women on the front lines of keeping Canada safe, the
Liberal government decided to wait. It dragged its heels until
the Supreme Court of Canada intervened in 1994, much the same way
as it dragged its heels on the Young Offenders Act.
The supreme court ruled that in the absence of federal
legislation, the police did not have any lawful means to obtain a
search warrant for the seizure of bodily substances for the
purposes of DNA typing. This lack of legislation led the supreme
court to determine that DNA evidence obtained without the consent
of the accused risked being excluded at trial.
The government finally took the first step in 1995 for the legal
framework of DNA. That bill gave the police the right to seek a
warrant that, if approved by a provincial court judge, authorized
the collection of bodily substances for DNA analysis. Bill C-104
also legislated criteria for judges to consider when reviewing
DNA warrant applications. Police officers, lawyers and judges
finally had some guidelines, albeit very broad ones, to govern
the collection of DNA evidence.
With Bill C-104 in place, the obvious question arose: What
would the government do with DNA samples once they were
collected? The logical answer was the creation of a national DNA
data bank in which collected DNA samples could be stored for
future reference in criminal investigations or trials.
Even the Minister of Justice at the time when not preoccupied
with cracking down on law-abiding gun owners—another contentious
issue obviously—or launching politically motivated witch-hunts,
conceded the importance of a national DNA data bank. He felt it
was so important that when Bill C-104 was approved, he promised
complementary data bank legislation for the fall of 1995.
That promise as we know bit the dust when the government started
consulting on the January 1996 discussion paper entitled
“Establishing a National DNA Data Bank”. Interestingly enough
the cover note and news release which accompanied that discussion
paper at the time stated that the government would bring in DNA
data bank legislation in the coming year.
We all know what happens to promises. The coming year stretched
into 16 months and obviously it died on the Order Paper, but it
was included in the Liberal's red book two during the election. I
will say the Liberals at least did not use the election as an
excuse to delay the importance of this legislation. Obviously it
is on the floor of the House now.
With the exception of some minor changes the technical language
in Bill C-3 is what we are talking about today. The solicitor
general has outlined many of the positive elements in this bill
of which there are several.
The DNA data bank to be managed by the RCMP will consist of two
main components: a crime scene index that will contain DNA
profiles obtained from unresolved crime scenes; and a convicted
offenders index that will contain DNA profiles of adult and young
offenders convicted of designated Criminal Code offences.
Because police officers will be able to cross reference data
from certain convicted offenders with unresolved crime scenes,
the DNA identification act is an improvement over the vacuum
which previously existed in terms of storing DNA data.
But will this national data bank as established under Bill C-3
provide our police officers with an effective tool to solve
crimes and keep our streets and communities safe? That is the
question.
1240
The police officers through the Canadian Police Association say
no. In fact the police association which has been at the front
of the lobbying movement to establish the data bank is so
concerned about the effectiveness of Bill C-3 that it is opposed
to the legislation.
The major concern of the police association is with the timing
of DNA collection. According to the CPA, a national DNA data
bank will only be successful if the collection of DNA from a
person charged with an indictable offence is done at the time of
the arrest. Why is this the case? Because the only guaranteed
opportunity to obtain the DNA evidence from individuals charged
with an indictable offence is when police actually have custody
of the person charged.
The proposed convicted offenders index while somewhat useful
would not help police identify unknown murderers and rapists. It
might even encourage suspected offenders to skip bail as most
people charged with offences are released pending trial. In fact
if we look at it, in Canada bail is granted to 95% of all people
charged with all criminal offences. According to Juristat more
than 66,000 people in 1995 either broke bail or failed to appear
as required. Therein lies the problem.
What would happen for example if someone was arrested for an
offence related to juvenile prostitution which is a designated
offence for DNA collection under this legislation but in this
case the individual may have also committed an unsolved murder
from which the offender's unidentified DNA was collected. It is
pretty obvious the person would know that if he is convicted of
the juvenile prostitution charge, the DNA analysis would be
obtained and cross referenced with the crime scene index. Then
that person would be up on a murder charge.
It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that under the
current bill many offenders would choose to skip bail instead of
risking a murder charge. How would that help police in this case
solve the mystery of an unsolved crime?
As it now stands Bill C-3 has a loophole and that loophole is
big enough to drive a truck through. If there is one thing our
legal system does not need at this time, it is more loopholes.
I understand the fears of individuals such as Canada's privacy
commissioner, but I believe there are ways to deal with some of
the privacy concerns without compromising collection of samples
and the ability to solve the most serious of unsolved crimes.
When the previous minister introduced the first incarnation of
the DNA identification act, he stated the importance of getting
the data bank correct the first time.
Our officers do not believe that Bill C-3 is the most
appropriate measure to collect and store DNA evidence. And if
they do not, we should take a serious look at amending this
legislation at the committee level.
I support the goals and objectives of this bill, but our police
officers and courts need an effective DNA data bank as soon as
possible. If we allow for modifications of Bill C-3 at the
committee level, I believe we can make an effective DNA data bank
a reality.
I would therefore urge my colleagues, especially the solicitor
general, and the justice committee to be flexible and consider
the reasonable suggestions put forward by organizations such as
the Canadian Police Association. We need to plug those loopholes
such as the ones highlighted by the CPA and other organizations.
I will conclude by simply stating that if the Liberal government
or any other party decides to refuse these amendments to Bill C-3
at the committee level, our caucus will be obligated to
re-evaluate its position on this legislation.
1245
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have been given only a few minutes to
make some quick observations about Bill C-3, an act respecting
DNA identification. The bill would make consequential amendments
to the Criminal Code and other acts and has been brought forward
by the solicitor general.
In the last Parliament we passed provision 487 of the Criminal
Code for obtaining a search warrant to seize a bodily substance
for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. This was in respect of
a limited list of offences to be used in the course of an
investigation. I truly hope that this bill fully extends and
complements those provisions.
The bill establishes a national databank for DNA profiles,
containing a crime scene index and a convicted offenders' index,
including samples derived from some who are currently serving
sentences.
Technology marches on. Twenty years ago no one would have
guessed that we would be capable of sending such a large amount
of data through a telephone line. Today we can use e-mail and
the Internet to talk. We can send information via e-mail and
post data via the Internet with moving pictures. It seems now
that instead of exchanging phone numbers we exchange e-mail
addresses. Soon ordinary camera film and the old dedicated TV
sets will also be obsolete.
I came across an article recently by Sheryl Mercer, who is a
Toronto writer, which provided me with some insight into our
history. She said that when it was introduced, fingerprint
evidence caused as much controversy and furor as DNA is doing
today. When photography was first introduced, people seriously
questioned whether pictures could be used as evidence in a
criminal case. Today it is commonplace to use security video
camera evidence of a crime.
In 1908 an order in council sanctioned the use of fingerprints
under the Identification of Criminals Act of 1898. Like the
Internet and photography, fingerprinting was considered
revolutionary.
The history of fingerprints is applicable to Bill C-3 and the
whole issue of DNA and DNA banking.
Argentina was the first country to adopt fingerprinting. The
country also was the first to solve a murder by fingerprint
evidence. In 1892 Francesca Rojas murdered her two sons so that
she could marry a lover. Her bloody fingerprint was left at the
scene of the crime. After identifying the print as that of
Rojas, she confessed to the murders.
In 1905 police inspector Edward Foster, a fingerprinting
pioneer, was assigned to fingerprint prisoners at the Kingston
penitentiary. The project was scrapped because of a lack of
funding and political will.
It is noteworthy that Foster's revolutionary work was even
scoffed at by politicians of the day. In 1910 a prisoner, Joe
Chartrand, escaped from Kingston. Chartrand, a cop killer, was
soon captured. When the public heard that he had never been
photographed and fingerprinted they were outraged at the callous
inattention. The public was ahead of the politicians.
Soon after the Kingston escape, Edward Foster was promoted by
the justice minister to be in charge of the new Canadian criminal
identification bureau. The police created a Canadian fingerprint
repository in 1911.
In 1914 Peter Daracatch and Gregory Parachique, who broke into a
Canadian Pacific Railway station, were the first to be convicted
in Canada based on fingerprint evidence.
In our time, in 1985, a British scientist discovered that
certain sections of the body's genetic material found in DNA
differentiated individuals from one another and today we are
discussing whether Canada should have a national databank,
containing DNA profiles of convicted offenders and unsolved crime
scenes.
Through this century Canadians have wanted governments to do
whatever they could to make our streets safer. We want
incorrigibles behind bars. We need safer communities. We want
efficient trials and fair justice administration which we can
trust. However, people preoccupied with their version of human
rights are up in arms over this type of legislation. They
believe that the rights of some will be violated.
That is not the case in this instance. Nevertheless, striking
the right balance among competing principles is very important.
Unfortunately, instead of sincerely seeking that balance,
Liberals too frequently find these situations requiring a kind of
legislative courage not often found in their ranks. In our ranks
we are looking for the complete normalization of DNA evidence
without convoluted exceptions.
In 1988 the supreme court dealt with the privacy of
fingerprinting. In his ruling, Justice La Forest stated “a
person who is arrested on reasonable and probable grounds that he
has committed a serious crime—must expect a significant loss of
personal privacy”.
La Forest also pointed out the purpose of setting up a
fingerprint registry was to establish the identity and criminal
record of the accused, to discover if there are outstanding
warrants against the accused and to determine if the accused is
an escapee.
1250
The same can be said with DNA evidence. However, a 1994 supreme
court ruling disagreed. The ruling stated that police had no
lawful means to obtain a search warrant for the seizure of bodily
substances for the purposes of DNA typing and that any such
evidence was in jeopardy of being excluded at trial. It is hoped
that Parliament's response to this problem, the new 487 clause in
the Criminal Code, will endure all tests.
With a history of these references over, I want to speak
specifically about Bill C-3. When we are elected as
representatives, it is our duty to create legislation that is in
accordance with the basic aspirations of Canadians.
I have travelled from coast to coast. I have talked to many
groups, some who support the policies of the Reform Party and
others who do not. Nevertheless, the general consensus is always
the same. People say not to go half way against crime. People
tell me that if we are going to create legislative capacity, not
to tinker here and there, having only the appearance and form
without operational substance. Be honest with Canadians. Do what
is right rather than what seems to be convenient to the various
competing voices.
Unfortunately it appears that Bill C-3 does not go the distance.
The Liberals are afraid of going all the way. They are more
concerned with the privacy rights of the accused and less
concerned with innocent victims.
The bill does not contemplate the collection of DNA until after
the accused is convicted. It is easy for the accused to skip
bail and commit another crime. If further crimes are committed
the chance of linking the crimes becomes a lot more difficult.
In the bill it is rightly an offence to use DNA samples for
purposes other than those of the act. DNA obtained under the
Criminal Code provision should not be used for medical research
or other purposes not related to solving crime. Opponents of DNA
banking should consider the relief it would bring to victims,
such as if a rapist is convicted because of DNA based on perhaps
charges of breaking and entry arising several years earlier. The
improved certainty that DNA profiles can bring to the justice
system is most welcomed.
Fingerprinting was once seen as intrusive on the privacy of
individuals. So was taking a breath sample for impaired driving.
I am certain the statistics are overwhelming of how many crimes
have been solved using fingerprint evidence. There was a a long
process to advance the technical and ethical context of
fingerprinting. Need we go through the same things with DNA?
Simply put, a DNA sample should be collected from all persons
accused of serious crimes in the same way that fingerprints are
collected. Although the technical capacity is somewhat
different, the ethical and legal issues are basically the same.
The DNA profile should then remain on file for a indeterminate
amount of time. If the accused is released from all charges, it
should be his or her responsibility to appeal to have the record
removed.
Why make a distinction between fingerprints and DNA profiles?
Let us get on with it and have basically the same rules for DNA
as there are for fingerprints. It took decades to sort out
fingerprinting and taking breath samples for drunk driving. A lot
of unnecessary pain and death occurred while lawyers resisted,
argued, game played and ignored the public interest.
DNA not need go down the same winding road. The Reform Party
supports amending the Criminal Code so that police can, on the
basis of probable cause, demand DNA samples from suspects of
serious crime. The government has created a very convoluted bill
that will not technically work very well and all the permutations
and the mistakes will eventually be revealed in the application.
It is likely that Parliament will have to come back and fix the
bill. The technocrats, of course, are understandably proud of
their work and they will defend it. The real problem is the lack
of political leadership and resolve from the Liberal cabinet.
In conclusion, we can learn from the past so that we can boldly
go forward. The community expects no less. I am pleased that
the government has finally addressed the topic of DNA. However,
I had hoped for a much bolder approach. I have confidence that
we have the legal talent in Canada to write a simple, ironclad
law that works and appropriately balances individual and
community concerns. I urge the government to have more resolve
to respond to crime. May we work together to make Canada a safer
place to live.
1255
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
speak today with regard to the DNA databank that is being
proposed. Those who are innocent will applaud this legislation
and this change. Those who are guilty will oppose it.
Today the Reform Party is proposing to make the bill more
effective. We generally support the goals and objectives in
setting up a DNA databank. The Reform Party was in favour of
this before the election and even offered to fast track this bill
before the election because Reform members saw it having
significant importance in being able to identify criminals.
Since the bill did not pass and is now before us today in the
new session, we would like to make some amendments to it. We
believe it can be more effective. I will touch on three areas to
identify them. First, samples should be taken from all accused;
second, samples should be required for all indictable offences;
and third, samples and analyses should be retained rather than
destroyed.
Some will say that the bill treads on the idea of privacy. This
is not as much an issue of personal privacy as it is of victims'
rights. For those who argue the issue of personal privacy,
surely those persons who are innocent, whether they be proven
innocent by DNA, by fingerprints or by breath samples, are
encouraged and supportive of these measures because fingerprints
or breath samples or DNA are able to set them free if they have
not committed the crime. I repeat, the innocent will applaud
these changes, the guilty will oppose them.
Obviously DNA identification will be a valuable tool for
eliminating a suspect if innocent. That is where the personal
privacy aspects are negated. From what we know, DNA is probably
the best way of eliminating somebody as a suspect of a crime. In
the case of public safety, DNA identification is the most
effective way of providing persuasive evidence of guilt. We
support the idea of creating a databank for this.
If these changes are made, that is taking samples from all of
the accused, requiring samples in all indictable offences and
retaining these samples, we ameliorate or lessen the concern
about people skipping bail in cases where they know they are
guilty, where they suspect they may be found to be guilty so they
try to quash their being subject to a DNA analysis which would
occur during the case's proceedings. For the sake of justice we
do not want to see that happen. That is why we believe it is
important that these samples be retained. If people are charged
these records will be put on the registry, not only if they are
convicted.
If the specific charge collapses then a person's links to other
crimes will not be revealed by taking the DNA sample at the time
the charge is laid. As a result, it is important to keep a
permanent register, that this be done not only in the case of a
conviction but also in the case of somebody being charged.
The question on which many people focus is how many murderers
and sex offenders have been allowed to remain out on our streets
because this bill was not passed when it should have been. The
Reform Party wanted to pass this bill before the last election.
We support the bill but we would like to see it being more
meaningful. We would like to see some slight changes made to the
bill so it can have broader implications, and accomplish more of
what it aims to do so that it can meet a broader definition in
terms of its goals and objectives.
I will summarize by going over some of the three provisions we
would like to see in the bill. First, samples should be taken
from all of the accused.
Second, that samples be required for all indictable offences.
Third, that samples and analysis be retained rather than
destroyed. With these changes the Reform Party would
wholeheartedly support the idea of a DNA databank.
1300
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise also in this debate on DNA identification.
I have to point out just how long it has taken the Liberals to
start providing our police officers with more of the
technological tools, such as DNA evidence, required to protect
Canadians from criminals.
Once again, and this is so typical of the Liberal approach to
crime control, the Liberals are more interested in protecting the
rights of criminals than the victims of crime.
Let me point out the sections in Bill C-3 that place handcuffs
on the police when the government instead should be making it
easier for our law enforcement officials to protect Canadians.
First, the taking and storing of DNA samples should be handled
as simply and effectively as the RCMP now handle fingerprints.
Currently police can fingerprint and photograph all persons who
are charged with or convicted of an indictable offence. However,
Bill C-3 will allow DNA samples to be taken only from those
convicted of, not just charged, with offences.
Considering this, a person charged with robbery could also be
wanted for rape but DNA samples cannot be collected with the
Liberals' bill until after the person is convicted of robbery.
Everyone knows what is likely going to happen. This accused
could avoid being charged on the more serious crime of rape by
simply skipping bail on the robbery charge.
Second, with Bill C-3 DNA can only be collected for convictions
of a select number of designated criminal offences, not for all
indictable offences as it is now with fingerprints. Therefore
some of these designated offences, like robbery, arson, torture
and causing death by criminal negligence, only allow DNA to be
collected by court order when with fingerprints it is automatic.
This is not going to help the police to keep our homes safe from
burglars and arsonists. This is not going to protect Canadians
from assault, hostage takings, hijackings and all the other court
order only DNA offences in the Liberals' never ending list. No,
designating offences for court order only DNA is only going to
give more jobs to the lawyers and the courts, presumably all
Liberal friends at the bar.
A third way that Bill C-3 inadequately protects the rights of
victims is that the bill would provide for the destruction of DNA
at any time that the commissioner of the RCMP believes the sample
is no longer required. The rationale of this section is to
protect the privacy rights of criminals and the accused. However,
Bill C-3 already makes it an offence to use DNA samples for
wrongful purposes.
Will Canadians really be outraged if DNA is instead stored and
then later used to convict a rapist who was convicted of robbery
several years earlier? Whose privacy rights are more important
to the Liberals, the privacy rights of the rapist or the privacy
rights of the victim of the rape?
Continuing on, though, allow me to illustrate a fourth problem
with Bill C-3. I would like to ask the Liberal government why
is it that its proposed DNA identification act was not part of
the first phase of its DNA legislation in 1995 at which time it
allowed the police to get warrants to take DNA samples from
suspects. More than two years have gone by since this first
phase and in all this time I have to ask how many criminals could
have been put behind bars while the Liberals were waiting on
introducing a DNA bank.
What is more, how many more innocent Canadians will become
victims to criminals until the Liberals' proposed DNA databank
begins operating in another two years or so? Yet in an attempt
to cover up these delays, the Liberals would like to refer Bill
C-3 to committee before second reading.
1305
This procedure no doubt is proposed because of the Liberals'
reluctance to give the bill the level of debate it deserves. In
other words, the Liberals do not want Reform to point out the
bill's many flaws.
This is a bill that needs to be debated in the House. Referring
it to committee so soon is an obvious delaying tactic to prevent
Canadians from seeing just how much it panders to criminals and
ignores victim rights.
Today more than ever we have evidence of the need for a national
victims bill of rights that will restore a balance within the
criminal justice system by placing the rights of victims above
the rights of criminals. All these points about the DNA
identification act and its preoccupation on the criminal's versus
the victim's rights lead me to the inescapable conclusion about
the Liberal government's views of criminals and ordinary
Canadians. A criminal is someone to be protected, to have all
the rights under the stars, sun and moon, to be set free in most
cases but, if detention is necessary, to be given a nice
comfortable jail cell with cable TV and all the new channels,
along with conjugal visits, good home cooking and parole in a
couple of months.
It is clear that Liberals do not want the bad guys in jail, but
if they are forced to put them in jail they want them to enjoy
their stay. A law abiding Canadian to the Liberals is simply
someone whose rights become secondary to criminals in our
society.
Bill C-3 reinforces this unacceptable Liberal philosophy toward
crime. It does not do enough for victims of crime and it does not
do enough to help the police in their job of ensuring our
communities are safe places to live.
I endorse the concept of a DNA bank. It is necessary to be able
to identify criminals positively and it is important for us to be
able to correctly exonerate the innocent and to make certain the
guilty are proven to be guilty and are punished for their crimes.
This is the only way we will be able to restore true justice to
our justice system.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the technology of DNA is available to us. It is probably the
most accurate means of being able to identify one human being
from another since everyone's DNA code is different. Some
people have closer matches than others, but technology has
advanced to the point where science can definitely differentiate
every human being in the world from one another.
I do not understand the reluctance of anyone to applying the
technology available to us in the enforcement of our justice
system. Fingerprinting technology is used readily and is part of
law enforcement today. Fingerprints can be compared to records
and it often results in solving what was previously an unsolved
crime.
If someone is arrested and charged with a crime, I do not see
why we would not have that person submit to a DNA test and
compare it to our DNA databank. If the person is not matched to
the bank of a previously unsolved crime and is exonerated of the
charges brought against them, their DNA fingerprint could be
removed from the databank.
1310
It just seems that it would be in the best interests of our
entire society to take advantage of this technology and use it in
that respect.
With respect to destroying samples, as I said, if a person has
been exonerated and the samples are destroyed there would be no
harm done to the person who was falsely accused of a crime.
I was reading through the act and section 2(1) states:
The following persons may be fingerprinted or photographed or
subjected to such other measurements, processes and operations having
the object of identifying persons as are approved by order of the
Governor in Council:
(i) an indictable offence, other than an offence that is designed
as a contravention under the Contraventions Act in respect of
which the Attorney General, within the meaning of that Act, has
made an election under section 50 of that Act, or
(ii) an offence under the Official Secrets Act;
(b) any person who has been apprehended under the Extradition
Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act; or
(c) any person alleged to have committed an indictable offence,
other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under
the Contraventions Act in respect of which the Attorney General,
within the meaning of that Act, has made an election under
section 50 of that Act, who is required pursuant to subsection
501(3) or 509(5) of the Criminal Code to appear for the purposes
of this Act by an appearance notice, promise to appear,
recognizance or summons.
I guess it all comes back to my original point, which was that
there would be no reason not to take samples upon a person's
being charged with a crime, running them through the databank
system, which would ultimately determine whether that person is
to be convicted. We should look at the greater good to the
Canadian public and the assistance it would give our law
enforcement officers.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will keep my remarks quite brief. I have always
admired the Reform Party in its aspects on various legislation,
including gun control, victims rights, et cetera. It should be
also commended for its efforts to keep our streets safe.
However, I have a couple of concerns for which I do not yet have
answers. I was hoping that I could get the answers in the debate
today for our party and for our constituents.
The fear I have the most is that in some countries which are not
as democratic as ours there is the assumption of guilt before
innocence. Thank goodness we live in a society where a person is
innocent until proven guilty either by a judge or jury of their
peers.
There is one aspect I have not heard from the Reform Party. In
the event that a DNA sample is collected and the individual is
found to be not guilty, will the DNA sample be removed and
destroyed or will it be held in the databank for ever and a day?
If the presumption is that we are going to maintain these samples
forever, the the next step I see is that each person born will
have a DNA sample taken and locked up somewhere. If a person is
proven innocent after going to trial, will the DNA sample be
removed?
As well, we heard members of the Reform Party talk about
criminals and the length of time they should stay in jail and the
treatment they should receive while incarcerated.
1315
I would have a question for them. What rehabilitation processes
would they have in place while the person is incarcerated? What
kind of halfway programs would they include in their summations
of a prisoner once the person has served their time to
rehabilitate them back into society?
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today, an act to
provide for the establishment of a national DNA databank.
The way to approach the topic is by clearly determining the
obligation of the government when it comes to dealing with people
charged with offences, people who commit offences and break the
law.
The government has a responsibility in the area of public safety
to do everything possible to ensure that families, communities
and streets are safe places. While there are those who will
argue the government has gone too far in its policing of our
citizens, communities and neighbourhoods, a huge majority of
Canadians do not believe the government has gone far enough in
areas of providing policing and of giving municipal, city or
regional police enough tools to fight crime. The government has
not gone far enough in its commitment that victims of crime
should be the number one priority of the criminal justice system.
That is fact.
With regard to DNA testing no one in the country of any
consequence in numbers has a problem with fingerprinting.
Fingerprinting is an automatic act when one is charged with most
crimes. It helps police forces to identify the person who has
been arrested. It enables them to check the records to see
whether the person is wanted on any outstanding warrants in
another part of the country. It allows them to check the
fingerprints against the record of fingerprints that may have
been found at another crime scene. It serves as a very effective
and useful tool in fighting crime.
The bill does not go far enough. I will speaker about that
later. It is trying to take that identification tool one step
further. I might add that the way science has determined the
value and the accuracy of DNA is a tremendous step forward. It
is not just another small step. It is a huge step forward in
determining the absolute innocence or guilt of people charged
with crimes. It works both ways.
Mr. Speaker, you are a person who appreciates the country and
the safety of our communities. You regard the safety of
communities as a number one priority. I am certain you cannot
disagree, as members of the government cannot, that police forces
should be given every tool they need to catch the bad guys. That
is not a bad thing to do. I do not think anyone could disagree.
That is what we want to do here. We want to catch the bad guys,
the people who are committing crimes. We want to ensure that
somebody who has been picked up on a lesser charge of robbery,
for example, is identified upon arrest while awaiting trial.
If the DNA identification of the person indicates that there is a
DNA match in a more serious crime such as rape, assault or murder
three or four years prior, the person is identified when arrested
on a subsequent robbery charge, for example, if they were not
caught the first time.
1320
The last thing we would want to do is grant bail to a person
arrested on a robbery charge, knowing that the police may be
getting closer to solving a previous more serious crime and
knowing the person could not identified because of no DNA
testing. If the person skips out on bail it eliminates getting
caught. We have to be careful of that.
I do not think it is too much to ask for the bill to become more
encompassing as far as identification is concerned. I see no
problem with an amendment to the bill that would include the
taking of DNA samples in the same manner as we take fingerprints.
If the person were found not guilty, in answer to the NDP
member, the DNA sample would be treated the same way as
fingerprints when there is a request to have them destroyed. No
one would deny that.
The bill provides automatic samples for a very primary list such
as murder, sexual assault, et cetera. It requires application to
court for a secondary list of what the writers of the bill and
the Liberals could call less serious crimes.
We should amend the bill to include all people arrested for
indictable offences. At the time they are arrested, DNA samples
could be taken and used in the same way as fingerprints so that
the cross-checking and identification can take place. We should
amend the bill to cover this aspect of police work. If we do not
do so we would be missing a huge opportunity. It is the time to
do it. It is before the House now.
We should amend the bill to give it the teeth it deserves. It
should be amended so that police forces are given the tools they
need to do the job.
All of us want to see the safety of families, communities and
the country as a high priority. It is our obligation as
parliamentarians to ensure that community safety is foremost in
the criminal justice system.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a privilege to speak on the bill today. We should reflect back
to 1995 at which time there was no process in place to collect
the necessary material for a DNA sample.
I was in the House the day the member for Wild Rose challenged
the Minister of Justice to bring forth a bill to allow for the
collection of DNA samples. It was pertinent to an upcoming case
in which the DNA samples would have a large bearing on the guilt
or innocence of the person involved.
To the commendation of the government, it acted quickly. It
brought in a bill. We debated it in the House. It was passed so
that now there is a process in place through which DNA samples
can be collected. Prior to that there was no procedure.
Certainly it is a step forward but whenever we consider this
type of legislation we have to think about the balance between
the rights of the individual and the rights of the accused to
privacy and the rights of the public to be protected and to enjoy
a law-abiding society, or at least a society that takes action
when people do not abide by the law.
1325
While there may be some concern that this is an intrusion into
one's personal life, perhaps a check stop is also an intrusion.
Someone can be motoring down the highway perfectly legally, well
licensed, insured, in a safe vehicle and so forth. A policeman
can pull him over simply because he is stopping everybody to
check for drivers who have been drinking. I suppose a true
libertarian would say that is an infringement on the rights of
the driving public. We always have to weigh whether or not we
have to give up some of our so-called rights to make society
acceptable for all.
That is one of the main reasons the breathalyser test was
brought in. It is simply a collection of exhaled air rather than
a blood test. At the time when we were talking about the
legality of breathalyser tests in Canada there were people who
said that taking a blood sample was an intrusion into the
personal rights of the accused. The breathalyser test was
developed as a result of that balancing act. What we are
proposing as an amendment is a balancing act between individual
rights and collective rights of society.
Some concerns have been raised with regard to what will happen
to the collected DNA provided the accused is acquitted. Those
details certainly could be worked out. The DNA information
should be kept with the local establishment, the arresting body
in whatever town, city, village, or wherever the arrest takes
place. If after the trial it is determined the accused is
innocent or is acquitted, the evidence should be automatically
destroyed. An application should not have to be made. That
could be easily accommodated in the bill. It would speak volumes
to people who are libertarians and who set their personal
freedoms ahead of all other freedoms.
I am reminded of one of my father's quotes when he said that
democracy and freedom were all about being able to do whatever it
is that one wanted to do provided it did not interfere with the
rights of others. That sums it up quite nicely. When one
interferes with the rights of others or when one's actions causes
the rights of others to be lessened or infringed upon, these
kinds of consequences have to take place.
I stress the balancing aspect of the legislation. It is of
utmost importance. The question of whether or not the DNA
material, evidence or analysis will be widely or locally
distributed can be very easily dealt with in the legislation. I
am pleased to hear it being raised as a concern because of the
possibility of having it included in the legislation. It is of
utmost importance.
We must also not assume that DNA evidence is there only to
convict.
It is also there in cases where the accused would be very pleased
to offer up a DNA sample and I can think of a few cases without
enumerating them. We all know of cases in which people have been
accused and convicted on circumstantial evidence and where DNA
evidence has ultimately proven their innocence.
1330
This can be viewed from both sides. We should not automatically
assume this is a convicting tool. It is also a tool that will
determine innocence. It is very much along the lines of the
breathalyser test, a commonplace test for sobriety.
I am very pleased to see the Reform Party has put forth these
amendments and that the government has at last come forth with
the legislation and has allowed us to debate it here today. In
my opinion this debate is excellent. My hope is that the
government is willing and ready to accept the Reform amendments.
I am a little disappointed that the government is not here to
share its rationale behind this legislation. I would very much
like to hear how it views the privacy aspect and the public need
aspect. I know the government is monitoring what is going on in
here now. I would certainly like it to put forth somebody from
the justice department to enlighten us a little more on their
thoughts on this matter.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to give credit to members of my party in
the justice portfolio who have done an outstanding job to bring
forth this issue not only in this Parliament but also in the last
Parliament. It is something we find very difficult to disagree
with because it does so much good not only in apprehending the
guilty in our society but also in ensuring that false convictions
do not occur. It helps the innocent and it helps society to
prosecute the guilty.
It is a shame and the government should be embarrassed that in
the last Parliament it did not take the initiative with this tool
that can be so effective in helping the police do their job.
Heaven knows they have such a difficult time already. In many
cases their hands are tied behind their backs by bureaucratic
entanglements and rules and regulations which prevent them from
apprehending the guilty.
Bill C-3 and the amendments we put forward can help the police
and can help society in building stronger and safer communities.
This bill is a disappointment. The government has taken a very
simple and good concept and has complicated it. It has not dealt
with the issue in a meaningful way. It has once again merely
nibbled around the edges.
That is why my colleagues in the Reform Party in the justice
portfolio have been forced to put forth amendments to toughen up
the bill. They do not come merely from us. They come from police
officers and the public who are very knowledgeable about this
issue. They have put forth constructive solutions to make Bill
C-3 an effective tool and an effective weapon in defeating crime.
There are many aspects that must be included in the bill.
The issue of how the national data bank will assist the police
and the courts is very important. It has to be dealt with in a
way that involves the following points. We have to ensure the
data bank will be applied to individuals who will be convicted in
the future and to individuals who have been convicted in the
past. Individuals such as Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson
should have their DNA taken and put in this bank.
It makes eminent sense.
1335
I cannot think of an intelligent reason why the government would
oppose that other than on purely philosophical grounds.
Philosophical grounds do not make our country safe. They are
important but we cannot lose sight of the fact that our objective
is to make our country stronger and safer.
It does not mean that we need to trample on the rights of
anybody. An innocent person would have absolutely no compunction
whatsoever about having DNA extracted and put into the bank in
order to be exonerated from a criminal act. That is important. If
guilty of course the person would be afraid and would put up any
number of roadblocks to prevent that from happening. It is very
important that this bill be applied retroactively to individuals
now in jail who have committed serious offences.
One thing I found very disturbing about the bill was that the
government chose not to apply it to all serious and indictable
offences. Why I am not sure. Perhaps only the justice minister
knows the answer. What we want to do for the sake of the Canadian
public is to ensure that the DNA data bank would be applied to
every person convicted of a serious indictable offence in Canada.
The government cannot argue this. It is irresponsible not to
apply this to all serious offences.
The other point we would like talk about is to ensure that the
DNA samples and data are going to be taken properly and that
access is going to be only for forensic purposes. We are very
sensitive to the privacy needs for all Canadians. We are also
very sensitive to the needs of ensuring that we have an effective
justice system and that the police have the effective tools to
enable them to do their job. This data bank must be treated with
that respect.
Other aspects we would like to bring up include the fact that
this bill and the precursors to it have been employed in a number
of countries around the world. Great Britain, many states in the
United States, and a number of European countries have all
brought forward their own DNA data banks and they have been very
effective. They have been effective not only in apprehending the
guilty but also in exonerating the innocent.
It is also important that the samples and data be kept for a
number of reasons. One is to ensure that the innocent are not
convicted. Also, a person who commits a violent crime today
could easily commit a violent crime at some time in the future. A
convicted person who spends 10 years in jail for a serious
offence and is let out unfortunately sometimes will continue to
commit serious and violent offences. We must have that data
because it would enable us to make a rapid intervention and a
rapid apprehension. One of the amendments we are putting forward
is to ask the government to please ensure that this good and
valuable data is not tossed away.
I would like to talk about an important issue the government has
failed to do. The Reform Party caucus has continued to try to
impress upon the government the need to not only apply its funds
to apprehending the guilty but also to apply funds to crime
prevention. The government has had one mandate and has failed to
introduce into this House any effective measures to prevent
crime.
In this country, crime is on the increase. The government likes
to put forth information saying it is on the decrease and some
statistics do show that. But when we peer beyond those
statistics, what do we find? We find that only 28% of violent
offences in this country were actually reported to the police.
Ninety per cent of sexual offences were not reported. Sixty-eight
per cent of other violent victimizations were never reported to
the police. This extends beyond violent interventions into other
serious interventions too.
The Canadian public is having a crisis of conscience with
respect to the justice system. It is not that they have a lack
of faith in the police officers, the men and women who work very
hard and put their lives on the line day in and day out, 24 hours
a day, 365 days of the year. It is because the justice system
impedes and impairs the police officers from doing their job.
1340
We in the Reform Party have repeatedly and continually put forth
constructive, pragmatic and effective legislation that this
government could have adopted to try to address the serious
problem of crime that we have in our country. The government has
also failed to address the Young Offenders Act. We have put forth
interventions on that. There is much that we have done in our
party on crime prevention and the government has failed to grasp
it.
We cannot simply do what we have been doing. Crime costs this
country $46 billion a year. That is more than our entire
education budget. It is more than twice as much as what we spend
on employment insurance. We cannot continue to do it, not from
human terms nor economic terms.
I implore the government to really address this problem, get to
the heart of it. Engage in the punitive actions that will keep
our country safe but also address in the long range measures that
we can implement in a very pragmatic way to prevent crime, to
address crime in its early nascent period during the first eight
years of life. The government should introduce programs that are
going to address and deal with those issues. If we do that it
will help people not only in human terms but also in cold hard
dollars and cents.
Again I implore the government to look at Bill C-3. Look at the
amendments that my colleagues in the Reform Party have put forth,
adopt them and I am sure we will have widespread support for this
bill.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
many of the speakers this afternoon have addressed some of the
subtleties of this bill and some of the checks and balances that
are inherent in the bill and the amendments on the part of the
Reform Party. This afternoon I would like to speak to the heart
of this bill and the original intention that was put forward and
why we are actually considering this in the first place.
In the day and age we live in there are a great number of
technological advances and scientific developments. It is good
that there has been some recognition of the priority of using
these advancements in the area of justice and protection of our
society. It is a step in the right direction.
My concern is that it is a step that may not be as effective as
it could be. That is why many of my colleagues have put forward
the amendments we have here today. To put it in common terms, it
is kind of like buying a saw without the blade, or a car without
the tires, or a hammer without the nails. It has some good
intent to it but it does not go far enough.
We have entrenched already in our justice system a good system
with checks and balances around how we handle fingerprints, yet
that is not good enough for the party across the way. No, we
have to layer on a new extensive bureaucracy that is going to
limit the effectiveness of this technology, limit the
effectiveness that our law enforcement agencies will have in
applying this technology to protect our citizens. It is a step
in the wrong direction. We could use the systems already in place
to administer this technology.
I would also like to speak to the importance of this House and
all the members here in recognizing the very difficult job our
police forces have, people who are willing to risk their lives
day in and day out to protect citizens. Often they are
frustrated with the bureaucratic morass they are faced with when
they attempt to bring criminals to justice. To their credit they
continue to do the best they can and are constantly looking in
our direction for help from this House to equip them with tools
that will make them more effective in their job.
My concern is for those men and women who have chosen as their
life career the protection of our society. Today we have an
opportunity to give them a tool that will make them that much
more effective and that much more fulfilled in their calling, yet
we only go halfway.
That is my concern.
1345
There is another component to this as well besides those who
protect our society. What about the victims? If this technology
and applying it the right way can protect one life or prevent one
assault that leaves that person scarred for life, that is
justification enough to implement it in a way similar to the way
we do fingerprints, to not only record who the criminal is but
potentially stop that criminal from performing that act in the
first place.
It is tragic that we only go halfway and do not give the justice
agencies the ability to implement this to the full.
We have also seen in Canada recently a number of judgments that
have years later proven to be incorrect. Had we had this
technology at the time and the ability to apply it, those people
would not have been incarcerated innocently for many years and
guilty parties would not have gone free. That is justification
enough. We must implement this measure fully, not the halfway
measure we see here today.
We must protect the people of Canada. That is what they are
looking for us to do. We must endorse legislation that would
allow our law keepers and those involved in that line of work to
do the job to the fullest.
It is too bad that this is only a halfway measure. I repeat as
I close here today that it is no good to have half of the tool
and not the whole tool to do the job. It is like a power saw
without the blade. That is what we have here today.
I know that my constituents would rather have seen this
legislation go to the point where our law keepers can use it
effectively day in and day out to protect them and keep the
criminals off the streets.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a
great piece of legislation. Finally we have movement toward
becoming a little more accurate in identifying the people who are
committing criminal acts. I think that is terrific. It is about
time we moved in this direction. The people of Canada have said
to the Government of Canada, be just. Administer the Criminal
Code righteously and above all, depend on truth.
This DNA databank is a great new technology. It is a great way
of providing identification positively and clearly. It is the
best we have. We should look at this and ask ourselves why it is
that there is any hesitation whatsoever in applying it wherever
it needs to be applied so that we can find those people who
actually are the ones in question here.
There should not even be a question about something like this.
Is there any doubt at all that we want to come to grips with the
criminal element in our society? Let's face it. The people of
Canada are looking to the government, any government, and saying
that it is their job to provide for their peace, their
protection, their safety and their property. That is the job.
That is what the justice system is supposed to do.
We know that this technology works. In fact we have the case of
Guy Paul Morin who today is free because this technology made it
very clear what was really the truth.
Therefore, the question we are facing here today concerns itself
with a new technology that has been proven to be more effective,
that has proven to be more desirable, one that has the complete
confidence of our law enforcement officers, one that has been
accepted by the judges in our courts.
We have before us now a bill that goes part way in accepting
such a technology. It is almost like saying that there are 26
letters in the alphabet but for now we will just use the first 13
and hope that the language will work. It will not work. Things
cannot be done like that.
1350
This legislation has to do with three things: responsibility,
truth and trust. What is the area of responsibility we are
talking about? I have already alluded to the number one
responsibility, that which the government is to provide for the
peace and security of its people and for the protection of their
property. It should do this in a peaceful environment, an
environment where people can be happy, where they can love and
have relationships with other people, where they can develop
friendships, where they can trust their neighbours and where they
can say “I am responsible”.
The same thing applies to law enforcement officers. These men
and women have been charged by the government to take our laws
and apply them to those who live in a way that is not consistent
with our laws and say “You have broken the law”. They must do
this the best way they can. They are the peacekeepers and
therefore responsible for we want in our society. It is the
responsibility of government to give them the tools that will
make it easy for them to do the job they have been charged to do.
Why would we think of tying their hands and saying they cannot
use this particular technology that has been proven to be so
effective? It seems shortsighted and devoid of responsibility.
Surely one of our major responsibilities is to give to these
officers the best possible tools with which to enforce the laws.
Is this bill responsible? It is responsible as far as it goes
but it is not exercising its full responsibility. In the final
analysis this should be an adult bill, a bill that realizes full
responsibility and not part of it.
The second aspect this bill should deal with is the question of
truth. Truth is an interesting concept. It is a construct we
need to recognize as something that is absolute. The truth
exists whether we believe it or not. If people choose to believe
something they will act in accordance to what they believe. If
they happen to believe the truth, they will act on something that
is truthful. They could also believe something that is not true.
That belief will still influence their actions but their actions
will be false and will be based on something that takes them in
directions in which they do not want to go and in which society
does not want them to go.
In the case of Guy Paul Morin, the police believed this man had
committed a crime. The truth was he had not but their actions
were determined by what they believed. He was charged. The court
looked at the situation, believed he had done this and put him in
jail. They convicted him. They then discovered that the truth
was elsewhere and what they had believed was in fact not the
truth. A way had to be found to identify what the truth was.
They did find it and this man was finally declared innocent. It
is wonderful that at least part of his life has been rejuvenated
and he is back in society, making a contribution both to his
family and to the community in which he lives.
This bill ought to be expanded so we can find the truth that
exists in all these cases. Not only should we be responsible but
we also need to find the truth in the best way we possibly can.
The third area is the area of trust. I found it very
interesting that one of the arguments used for not using this DNA
bank is because it might be used for the wrong purposes. That has
to do with trust.
I do not know of a single RCMP officer who does not have access
to a gun. That gun can be used for any one of a variety of
purposes. We trust that police officer to use the gun in the way
it was intended to be used. That is a matter of trust. That is
a matter of responsibility. That is a matter of truth. This
lady or gentlemen with the gun has said “I will use it in the
best interests of society. I will use it in the most powerful
way I know how and in the most effective way I know how to
enforce the law”. We trust police officers with a gun. It is a
lethal weapon that can maim and destroy lives, yet we trust them
with that weapon.
1355
Now we come to a DNA databank which is to be given to a very
specific group of people who know exactly what the guidelines and
the conditions are. Then we say that we cannot trust these
people. That is an insult to the people who use their best
abilities to enforce the law the way it should be enforced.
This is a very effective, precise tool. That tool should be
given to them and we should trust the people to use it in the way
in which it was intended. To think that we can never get around
to the business of trusting, that we would say “Unless we can
trust you, we are not going to give you anything.” Where would
it end? There would be no police officers, no one would take
responsibility for anything. We have to trust them.
Surely something that is known to be this effective can be given
to people and surely we can trust them to use it in a manner in
which it was intended.
In conclusion, this is an instrument for people to help people
and for the government to exercise its true responsibility to do
what it was elected to do, look after the safety and security of
Canadians and protect the property of individuals. We should
expand this, not contract it.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments and add my support to the bill,
although I do it reluctantly because I feel it is something that
should go a lot further. The whole concept of only being able to
take a DNA sample when a person is convicted does not help in the
police investigation of a case.
In my home province of British Columbia more than 300 murders
are unsolved. In many of these cases the police feel that if
they had been able to get DNA samples and DNA evidence they could
solve a huge number of these.
Large numbers of victims of crime are wandering around B.C.
knowing who the killers are, but are unable to get any conviction
because lack of DNA support. The whole concept of a DNA databank
has been a long time coming. However, it is a good beginning but
more has to be done to give police the tools they need to do the
job.
They have to be able to take DNA samples at the time of arrest
to aid in the investigation. They should be treated like
fingerprint evidence and destroyed only on request at the time of
an acquittal in the case.
Again, I add my support. I am sure that all victims'
organizations across the country support this kind of
legislation. However, it something we have to take a lot further
and more work has to be done. But it is a very good starting
point.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
The vote on the
motion stands deferred until the end of Government Orders
tomorrow, Tuesday, November 4, 1997.
It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[English]
SICKLE CELL DISEASE
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to inform the House about sickle cell disease.
Sickle cell disease is a chronic blood disorder. It is genetic.
The lifespan of a person with sickle cell varies. Members of our
community who are afflicted with the disease experience physical,
emotional and social effects of the disease.
Extensive research and funding are limited on sickle cell. There
is a need for resources to help health care professionals provide
appropriate treatment. On behalf of my constituents and other
Canadians who are afflicted with sickle cell, I call for greater
government funding and research for this disease.
I applaud the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario, the Sick
Children's Hospital and the Scarborough General Hospital for
their efforts in ensuring that this disease is understood.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla. They
are fuming at the recent sentence of convicted rapist Donald
Poslowski of Princeton, B.C.
Poslowski was convicted of the brutal rape and strangulation of
a 9 year old girl. The sentence? Six years with the possibility
of parole in just two.
The judge had the opportunity to give him a life sentence and
instead determined that six years would be sufficient. Who is
worse, the rapist who commits the crime or the judge who condones
it?
I applaud the community of Princeton which is fighting to appeal
this absurd sentence.
Canadians want a criminal justice system that offers true
justice for victims in sentencing, a system that acts as a
deterrent to potential violent offenders, a system that does not
allow violent offenders the opportunity for early parole.
Your honour, on the count of failing to provide safe
playgrounds, homes and streets, we find this Liberal government
guilty.
* * *
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize Canada
career week 1997 and to congratulate the week's organizers for
highlighting the necessity of preparing young Canadians for
opportunities in the new knowledge based economy.
Choosing a career path has always been a serious decision for
any generation of young people. Carving out a new career path in
the information society is especially challenging and that is why
the Government of Canada has made youth employment a national
priority.
One key goal of our youth employment strategy is to provide
young people with the information and assistance they need to be
informed about their career choices.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada is proud to be a partner and active
promoter of Canada Career Week. We are committed to seeing that
young people are made aware of the challenging career opportunities
in the new economy and, if necessary, to draw up the career plan
that will prepare them for the world of work.
[English]
Career week offers an important opportunity to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Malpeque.
* * *
LLOYD LOCKERBY
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most
pleased to offer congratulations to Mr. Lloyd Lockerby who last
week was inducted into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.
Born in Hamilton, P.E.I., Lloyd attended Prince of Wales
College, graduated from MacDonald College in 1938 and received
the governor general's medal for top standing.
He was employed as an agricultural representative with the
provincial department of agriculture and returned full time to
the family farm in 1943.
Lloyd's successful prize winning beef operation consistently
wins top placings at provincial, regional and national shows. His
fox herd breeding stock, shipped worldwide, has become
internationally known for its superior quality.
Lloyd's commitment to his community has been long and admirable.
He served as leader of 4-H for 21 years, as president of
Kensington Co-op, director of Amalgamated Dairies, as well as on
several provincial boards.
My heartiest congratulations to Lloyd, his wife Jean and their
family.
* * *
[Translation]
PARISH OF SAINTE-MONIQUE-LES-SAULES
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to congratulate the organizing committee of the 50th anniversary
celebrations of the parish of Sainte-Monique-les-Saules. The
activities it organized were a resounding success throughout the
year.
Its efforts were rewarded by the strong participation of
parish residents, and its members' enthusiasm was reflected in the
quantity and quality of the events organized.
I would particularly like to thank the chairman of the
committee, Lucien Lemieux, the parish priest, Gervais Dallaire,
and all 11 members of the organizing committee. All gave
generously of their time to the community. Through their
commitment, they are helping to strengthen the important ties
among people in Les Saules.
Once again, thank you to all those who contributed, in
whatever way they could, to the success of the 50th anniversary
celebrations of the Sainte-Monique-les-Saules parish.
* * *
1405
[English]
KELOWNA TOY RUN
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 200
motorcycles riding through the streets of a city makes citizens
wary, but in Kelowna the sound of engines revving is greeted with
enthusiasm because it means every child will receive a gift this
Christmas.
There has never been a formal committee struck for the Kelowna
toy run but each year these riders of goodwill collect toys,
raise cash for food hampers and give it all to the Salvation Army
to help families in need at Christmas.
It is not just the imagine of smiling faces on Christmas morning
that feels good, it is knowing that we live in a community where
people help people.
On behalf of the constituents of Kelowna, I give many thanks to
Tom Maxted, this year's organizer, and the many people who help
the Kelowna toy run get bigger and better every year.
* * *
VETERANS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, veterans week is a time of national celebration and
commemoration of those who served and continue to serve in our
military services.
Many who will attend next Tuesday's Remembrance Day services
will be the widows, the children and grandchildren of veterans
who never came home from the battlefield.
As we pay tribute to those who sacrificed so much on the front
lines, we must also remember that war does not affect only those
who fought but also those who were left behind. On the home
front it was often the women who took up the slack, who worked on
the farms and in the factories, raised families and kept the home
fires burning. It was the children who never saw their fathers
and grandfathers who also paid dearly for the sacrifice.
So we learn the lesson that no one can escape the tragic
consequences of war. The sacrifices of those who went before
either on the front lines or back at home must never be
forgotten. May those who have gone before us rest in peace. Lest
we forget.
* * *
KLAUS WOERNER
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the governor general will be naming the national
entrepreneur of the year. Mr. Klaus Woerner, the president of
ATS, a firm in my riding of Kitchener Centre, has been designated
as one of the finalists for this national award.
Beginning in a small shop with only two other employees in 1978,
Mr. Woerner's business has expanded to employ over 2,500
employees with operations in three continents and sales in all.
Mr. Woerner's success mirrors that of many business persons in
the Waterloo region, one of the most dynamic economic regions in
Canada.
The award presented today also reflects the tremendous
achievements of the Canadian economy in the past four years. The
future promises to be even brighter yet.
* * *
[Translation]
ST-FRANÇOIS-DE-SALES PARISH CHURCH
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year we
are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the building of the oldest
church in Laval, the church of the parish of St-François-de-Sales.
This magnificent example of Laval's heritage is located in the
riding of Laval East. Through its relics and architecture, it
stands as a tribute to the talents, creativity and aesthetic sense
of Quebec craftsmen and artists.
The church of St-François-de-Sales is also a symbol of the
sense of belonging to a community, to values of faith, sharing,
solidarity and openness to one another.
It is a tangible sign of the ties woven over time by its
parish community, to whom I wish to pay tribute today.
It is also, without a doubt, a reflection of our culture and
history, and one of the symbols of the enduring nature of the
people of Quebec.
* * *
COMMISSION DE TOPONYMIE DU QUÉBEC
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, controversy
still rages over the naming of 101 islands in the far north of
Quebec. On the one side, the Cree and Inuit communities feel that
they were not consulted before the names inspired by Quebec
literature were chosen, and on the other the Commission de
toponymie du Québec persists in stating that, in its opinion, this
was “virgin and unnamed territory”.
Matthew Coon Come, Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees,
and Zebedee Nungak are deeply disappointed by the geographical
names commission's giving the 101 islands a name and claiming not
to have known that there was already an aboriginal name for these
geographical features.
This is one more example of the separatist government's
preference for its own partisan agenda over consultation with its
fellow citizens in northern Quebec.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN POLICY
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the world is poised to sign a land mine treaty in
December and Canada has been a leader in this success. But this
is just the beginning.
1410
If we are to work toward a safer world we must address the
precursors to conflict and formulate responses to them. Human
rights violations, militarization and the breakdown of civil
structures all contribute to conflict. To address these requires
multinational responses from NGOs and other institutions.
Canada can use its moral suasive power to create a critical mass
of like minded nations to truly address these issues. We must
move our foreign policy from an era of conflict management to an
era of conflict prevention. We must seize the day for a better
and safer world for all.
* * *
LAND MINES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the NDP congratulates the international campaign to ban land
mines and the 1,000 NGOs from 60 countries that backed the treaty
process. We also congratulate Mines Action Canada with which we
were pleased to work in the last Parliament helping to copy and
forward the many letters of support it was generating to all
cabinet ministers.
The Canadian government and other governments responded to the
work of the NGOs, and that is good. Unfortunately the Americans
have not seen fit to sign on. We hope they and others will yet
see the light.
What we need now is a similar but even more comprehensive and
successful dynamic to develop around the need to abolish nuclear
weapons, which pose a threat to the entire human prospect. Let
the recent success on land mines be only the latest but not the
last step in banning particular evils from our midst.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC PREMIER
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, look out,
look out, Lucien Bouchard is in China.
In 1994, the sovereignist leader of the Bloc Quebecois stated,
in connection with the Canadian mission to China, that our Prime
Minister, and I quote “has made a 180 degree turn and set a course
that is guided by strictly commercial interests, thereby turning
his back on protecting human rights”.
Lucien Bouchard also asked whether our Prime Minister would
“allude to the oppressive policies of this dictatorial regime only
in very polite terms and in private, on the—advice of his
Minister of Foreign Affairs”.
Today, in 1907, as part of his own trade mission to China, the
same sovereignist leader, but now Premier of Quebec, is planning to
use courtesy and respect on this question. He does not want to see
this mission turn into a big problem.
So, who then is telling the truth, Lucien Bouchard, 1994
version, or Lucien Bouchard, 1997 version? It seems as if what is
sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander, where principles
are concerned. Will the real Lucien Bouchard please stand up.
I hope that the Bloc Quebecois, 1997 version, thinks the same
way as the leader of its head office in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
THE MINER COMPANY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
at noon Nobel prize recipient Jody Williams and the prime
minister destroyed the last land mine in Canada's stockpile. On
this momentous occasion I am disheartened by our government's
lack of interest in a domestic issue occurring in Shefford,
Quebec.
The Miner Company operated as an arms manufacturing plant during
World War II in Shefford. In April 1996 forgotten explosive
material was found at the site of the old plant. The ministers
of foreign affairs, defence and the environment as well as the
prime minister have all been made aware of this situation in our
backyard.
To date no action has been taken to clear the area of dangerous
material. I urge the government to maintain a domestic policy
consistent with our international agenda and to address the
dangerous situation in Shefford without further delay before a
Canadian resident is injured or killed.
* * *
LAND MINES
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is a remarkable day in Canadian history et nous pouvons touts
être fier d'être Canadiens.
Today after three years and the efforts of many individuals,
including the member for Brant, Canada has eliminated its
land mine stockpile. This is a critical step in the long road to
ban land mines around the world.
In December governments, NGOs, citizens and activists will come
together in Ottawa to sign a treaty that will unambiguously ban
land mines. For all the world it will be a wonderful
celebration. It will also be a time to commit energies, to work
hard to ensure the treaty is ratified, implemented and monitored.
The remarkable success of individual and collective efforts, the
tremendous accomplishments of people like Nobel peace prize
winner Jody Williams give us the energy we need to see this issue
resolved.
Let us join in congratulating Ms. Williams for her relentless
quest and in pledging to her our continued support to work
together toward a safer society within our borders and outside
them for all human beings.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are those in this House who link unemployment with
immigration in spite of the fact that several studies have proven
them wrong time and time again, but ignorance perseveres.
Immigrant success stories which are the norm do not make the
front page of national newspapers.
1415
Recently I received a letter from a constituent, a refugee to
our country and now a proud Canadian citizen. She wanted me to
know that she was gainfully employed, waiting for a place to do
her apprenticeship in hairdressing and earning credits toward a
high school diploma.
She ended her letter with:
I will try to make you proud and to be a good, honest and valiant
citizen, a small part of a large family of Canadians.
I am sure I echo the sentiments of many Canadians when I say to
her “Thank you, Hilda, for choosing Canada as your new home”.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, normally the finance minister is one of the more
talkative ministers in the House. He rarely misses a chance to
be on his feet, particularly when the prime minister is away, but
throughout the whole debate on the Kyoto emissions treaty he has
been strangely silent. That is unacceptable in that the Kyoto
deal could cost ordinary families thousands of dollars.
My question today is not for the prime minister or for the
environment minister. It is for the finance minister. How much
is the Kyoto deal going to cost and how are we going to pay for
it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the leader of the Reform
Party. This is the first time I have been asked a question by
the Reform Party on the issue.
As the environment minister set out very clearly, she has not
yet gone to Kyoto. The negotiations have not been completed. It
is very difficult for one to estimate the final costs of an
agreement that has been neither negotiated nor signed.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we cannot understand first the silence of the minister
and now the waffling of the minister.
Environmental interest groups are offering their speculation as
to what this deal will cost. The industry interests have offered
their speculation. The think-tanks have offered their
calculations, but it is the finance department that will have to
actually calculate the cost of positions the minister is taking
in Kyoto and how we will pay for it.
I repeat my question. How much is the Kyoto deal going to cost
and how are we going to pay for it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party has answered his own
question. Industry may well speculate. The Reform Party may
well speculate. The finance department does not speculate. The
finance department deals with facts. It deals with a number of
items that will have to be negotiated.
We are in the process of doing that, but we will not speculate,
not even to please the leader of the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are looking for answers on the economic
implications, the job implications and the tax implications of
the positions the environment minister is taking to Kyoto. The
finance department has the capacity to run those numbers. It can
run scenarios on all the options the minister is looking at.
Again I ask a question of the finance minister. Is it not his
obligation to the House to tell us how much what the environment
minister is proposing is going to cost and how we are going to
pay for it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the negotiations begin and when the government's
position is outlined in clear detail then very clearly the costs
and the ways of achieving it will be outlined.
What Canadians are really interested in is: Does the Reform
Party have a position on this, or is its only position that of
contradicting its own critic?
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what Canadians are concerned about is making sure that they do
not get a jump at the pump when this deal is signed, and the
minister has already promised it.
The Liberal minister for Alberta has been as quiet as a little
mouse on this, not even a squeak about the Kyoto deal. The
entire oil patch is worried and the Liberals have not ruled out
an energy tax. The minister has not done a thing to calm their
fears. Albertans want to hear finally from their top Liberal.
Let me ask the justice minister this. Will the justice minister
tell us her position on any energy or environmental tax?
1420
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of climate change is an issue
that affects our environment profoundly. It is an issue for all
Canadians, for every region of the country, and every region of
the country will take a part.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it certainly is an issue for all Canadians but specifically in
the Alberta oil patch. Albertans themselves are worried about an
energy tax.
The countdown to Kyoto is on. We would think the top Alberta
Liberal would have said something by now, but in fact she is
hiding and she is hiding in the House.
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: My colleagues, many times questions are
addressed to specific ministers. These ministers may or may not
have an administrative responsibility. I am sure the whole House
is aware that a question generally is posed to the government and
anyone on the government's side can answer that question at any
time they want.
I am going to permit the hon. member to continue with the
question.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure
Canadians will be glad of that.
Albertans are wondering where is Waldo. I do not want to hear
from the prime minister or the environment minister or the deputy
prime minister or anyone else. I want to ask a question of the
senior minister from Alberta. Will the justice minister stand up
for her constituents and will she stand up—
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue is one that the Reform Party
will not speak about from an environmental perspective.
We have yet to hear after 50 questions any view of the Reform
Party with regard to this as an environmental issue. Many
Albertans are doing very serious things to reduce greenhouse
gases in that province. The Reform Party could learn a lot by
listening to Albertans.
* * *
[Translation]
COMPUTER SYSTEMS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Experts agree that passage to the year 2000 will constitute a
challenge for business and government alike, since all computer
systems will run into the same problem, which will hamper all
government operations, including the issuance of cheques.
Given the serious threats posed by the arrival of the year
2000 to all computer systems, could the President of the Treasury
Board assure us that the government is prepared to meet its
obligations, including that of issuing cheques and pension cheques
in particular?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
very aware of the problem the arrival of the year 2000 represents
for our computer systems.
I have already provided the House with certain details on the
action we have taken, the groups looking at the situation—
department by department—and the sorts of problems we are
facing. We are doing what we have to so we can, among other
things, issue cheques and we are continuing to do what we have to
do in the various departments to come to terms with this
eventuality.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can
understand the minister's wanting to provide reassurance, but we
need to know the truth.
The auditor general is very concerned. What does the
President of the Treasury Board say to the auditor general, who
wants departments and agencies to give very high priority to the
year 2000 projects and to develop contingency plans?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
in contact with the auditor general on this matter. He mentioned
it in his latest report.
When I made my comments on the report to the auditor general,
I indicated that we would consider the matter urgent. We are
ensuring that all departments do likewise. We have set up a
steering committee that will ensure the proper measures are taken
in time.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): My question is for the
President of the Treasury Board.
Should the government fail to meet the information technology
challenge of the change in millennium, millions of cheques, including
pension, old age and EI benefit cheques, will not be issued.
1425
Since Human Resources Development Canada took a long time to
develop its computer system just to end up, after investing hundreds of
millions of dollars in this project, deciding that the solution would be
to cast the new system aside, what assurance do we have that a solution
will be found by the year 2000?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problems my hon.
colleagues refer to are real problems that concern us too. That is why,
once again, we have a group of experts at the data centre in charge of
monitoring developments, who are currently following every lead received
from the private sector and the public sector in other countries on how
to deal with the problem created by the advent of the year 2000.
I can assure my colleague that we are taking all necessary steps to
deal with this problem.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the year
2000 is 26 months away and that 26 months is a very short time to tackle
such a computer challenge, is the President of the Treasury Board
prepared to report to Parliament on a regular basis on the progress
being made in this respect?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me read into the
record part of the auditor general's report where he states his views on
the matter. It reads as follows:
The Secretariat has been actively raising awareness of Year 2000
across government. The interdepartmental working group set up and
chaired by its project office has provided a forum for discussing
views and exchanging experiences in Year 2000 work. Through its
surveys, the working group, and other interdepartmental committees
involving heads of information technology and deputy ministers, the
Secretariat has played a meaningful role in co-ordinating—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
* * *
[English]
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the finance minister. Last week Nova Scotia's
premier visited the finance minister seeking relief for the BST
burden on essentials like home heating fuel.
The federal government sent the Nova Scotia premier packing
empty handed even though a GST reduction would create far more
jobs than any other proposed tax break.
Why will the finance minister not agree to reduce the BST on
family essentials like children's clothing, home heating fuel and
school supplies and at the same time increase the GST tax credit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I met with the premier of Nova Scotia last week. We had
an extensive discussion dealing with a great number of issues,
all of which are under continued consideration.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): That is progress,
Mr. Speaker.
The finance minister is considering RRSP changes that would
primarily benefit those earning over $75,000. Yet it is middle
and lower income Canadians who have borne the brunt of his cuts
to health, education and other vital services.
Before introducing more tax cuts for the well off, will the
minister get in sync with Canadians, remove the GST now on family
essentials like children's clothing, school supplies and home
heating fuel, and grant GST tax relief to those who need it most?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not quite sure I know what planet the leader of the
NDP is on.
In terms of RRSPs the changes we have brought in such as the
unlimited carryback are a clear benefit to low and to medium
income Canadians.
At the same time the member should take a look at other tax
changes from my colleague in human resources, the child tax
benefit and the changes we have brought in for students, for
parents who are saving for their students' education, and the
changes we have brought in for the physically disabled.
That is precisely what we have done. I do not know where the
leader of the NDP has been but it is clearly not in North
America.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, in France,
in Great Britain and in the United States, there is an inspector general
for the armed forces.
An inspector general was required in the case of the Somalia
inquiry. Our party's electoral platform includes the appointment of an
inspector general. There have been reports showing that drugs were used
in a top secret military base and that there was another cover-up by the
Department of National Defence.
In view of these facts, why does Canada not appoint an inspector
general for the armed forces?
1430
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will have all of those functions in
the changes that are being made in the Canadian forces. We will
have a chief of review services and an ombudsman. Just about
anything that the Somalia inquiry suggested would come under the
role of the inspector general comes under the role of those two
people, or one of the other mechanisms, such as the grievance
board and the national investigative services of the military
police as well. There are all of these with civilian oversight as
well to ensure that Canadians are getting the proper information
about a job being done.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week at the defence committee I put forward a motion to hear
from the three Somalia commissioners to speak on chapter 44 of
their report, “A Need for a Vigilant Parliament”.
There were reports this weekend of drug use at a top military
base and a bungled investigation. Canadians deserve a military
that is proud, effective and capable. Canadians deserve a
military that is accountable to the people.
I ask again, when will the inspector general be a part of
Canada's defence team?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the preamble about
bungling.
Let me talk about the fact that we are going to have very
substantial civilian oversight with the ombudsman and with many
of the other functions that will be performed with respect to the
military. Also we will have a great increase in terms of public
reporting from the chief of defence staff, the judge advocate
general, the provost marshal, the military police complaints
commission, the ombudsman and the independent grievance board,
all of which will make annual reports which will be available to
Parliament for scrutiny.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not satisfied with the silence of the senior
minister from Alberta on an issue of concern to the—
The Speaker: My colleagues, as a general rule in question
period the question is addressed to the government. As a more
specific rule, if we are going to name ministers, it should be
with their administrative responsibility in mind. In question
period we do not know exactly where the question is going until
the question is put, but the question itself should go to the
administrative responsibility of a member. I would ask all hon.
members in phrasing their questions to keep that in mind.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I could argue that this
issue has a legal dimension and therefore might come within the
purview of the minister. This issue more importantly is a
balancing issue. We are trying to balance interests, an economic
interest and an environmental interest. We are trying to balance
the interests of different provinces. This minister is in a
position to represent those interests.
My question—
The Speaker: We are going to pass to the second question.
There was no question on the first pass. We ran out of time. I
would ask the hon. member for Calgary Southwest to please put his
question.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the senior minister from
Alberta has nothing to say.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
* * *
[Translation]
DEFICIT REDUCTION
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Finance.
Between 1993 and 1998, this government will have taken $19 billion
from the employment insurance fund, $11 billion from social transfers to
the provinces and $5 billion from its employees' retirement fund.
However, expenditures by departments and crown corporations will have
been reduced only by a little more than $2 billion.
1435
Instead of looting pension funds, the employment insurance fund and
provincial social programs, when will the Minister of Finance reduce his
spending by really cleaning up his departments?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member knows very well that there was a two-year gap between our first
expenditure reductions and the reductions in transfers to the provinces.
The member knows very well that tax points have to be considered and
that the federal cuts have been much deeper than the provincial cuts.
He knows very well also that since we took office, we have reduced
employment insurance premiums every year. He knows also that we have
invested a lot of money in research and development, in job creation and
in young people and that we will continue to make investments for the
future of Canadians.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that
is not the issue. The issue is that the Minister of Finance has taken
$35 billion from the pockets of the less privileged and that his own
efforts to reduce spending in his own department amount to about $2.4
billion. That is the real issue, and I am using his own figures. He
should answer the question instead of trying to evade it.
My second question is this: How can the minister say that he has
done his job properly when in fact he has confiscated $35 billion from
the provinces, from the unemployed and from retirement funds, when he
himself has only reduced spending by $2.4 billion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member knows very well that these numbers are completely wrong. One
thing that is clear, however, is that the province of Quebec has cut
transfers to its municipalities by 6% compared to our 3% cut to
provincial transfers, that is to say, Quebec has cut transfers to
municipalities by twice as much as we cut transfers to the provinces.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in a poll released this weekend a majority of Canadians said no
to new spending after the budget is balanced, but nearly half
said their top priority is to pay down the debt, while a third
said it was tax relief.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he agree with
Canadians that any future surplus should be directed to debt
reduction and tax relief and not to new spending?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is from Alberta. I would have thought
that he would have taken note of the Alberta growth summit in
which Albertans said that their priorities were exactly the same
as the government's, that is to say health care and education.
Yes, we have made it very clear that we do intend to reduce the
debt. In fact in the last six or seven months we have reduced
close to $13 billion of marketable debt.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the same poll a whole 7% of Albertans said they want new
spending from this government which is planning to spend half of
the future surplus on new spending. In fact more than half of
those surveyed said they are worried that this government is
going to get us back into a deficit situation again through new
spending. This government promised in the throne speech 29 new
spending programs and not a single tax cut.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that he has misread public
opinion? Will he agree to give Canadians the tax relief they are
demanding today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we already began to provide tax relief of over $2
billion over a three year period in the last budget.
What Canadians have made very clear is that they do not want to
see tax cuts paid for by a $3 billion reduction in old age
pensions which is in the Reform platform, or from a $3.5 billion
cut to health care which is in the Reform platform. Canadians do
not want to see the social programs of this country gutted and
eviscerated by a Reform Party which has no idea of what it is
that makes this country work.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN INVESTMENTS
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
to the Minister for International Trade.
Since 1995, OECD member countries, including Canada, have been
negotiating a multilateral agreement on investment, aimed at clarifying
the rules governing foreign investments.
Can the government assure us that the future agreement will include
adequate clauses to prevent countries from lowering their environmental
protection and labour standards in the hope of attracting foreign
investments?
1440
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whole goal of the negotiations for an
MAI is to set clear rules, clear regulations and above all, the
highest standards possible that will govern both investment into
Canada as well as outward investment across the world.
What we want to avoid certainly from our country's perspective
is that investment flows to the lowest standards in the
developing world. That is why I have been saying that after the
OECD we must transfer the whole issue of negotiating a
multilateral agreement on investment to the WTO so that we can
standardize business in the third world as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me try
again and see if I can get a clearer answer.
Will the government also pledge to ensure that cultural protection
measures included in the agreement will be negotiated in a manner
satisfactory to Quebec and Canadian cultural groups?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought I made myself crystal clear in
the first answer. I hope the member was listening because we also
said many times that as far as culture is concerned, Canadian
culture is off the table at the MAI.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, access
to information documents reveal the pathetic state of our
helicopter fleet. In the last three years alone there have been
6 accidents, 256 separate incidents, 48 injuries and 2 deaths.
The Labradors and Sea Kings need to be replaced now.
Will the minister of defence continue to delay and dance with
disaster or will he show that he really does care and announce a
delivery date today?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we really do care. That is why we want
to make sure that we get the proper helicopters that are going to
meet the operational needs for those fine dedicated men and women
who go out and conduct rescues under some very trying
circumstances. We are very close to doing that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of defence promised that he would have an announcement
before the end of September. It is now December and there has
been no announcement. It has been four years. What is the
hold-up? Why can the government not make up its mind on
replacing the helicopters?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the problems hon. members opposite
have is their research. They do not even know what month they
are in.
We certainly want to make that decision as quickly as possible.
We want to make sure we get the best value for the taxpayers'
money. We want to make sure that we provide equipment that is
going to be the best operational equipment for the people in the
Canadian forces who conduct 1,000 search and rescue missions a
year.
* * *
[Translation]
ALGERIA
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Algeria is sinking into anarchy and chaos, before the eyes of a
powerless international community. But, increasingly, we hear voices
saying we must not remain indifferent to this tragedy. These voices
include a coalition of religious and union organizations, including Mr.
Allmand's group.
Is the Canadian government prepared to follow up on that
coalition's request to establish a commission of inquiry or, contrary to
what it is doing in the area of land mines, is it not going to stick its
neck out?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I share the hon. member's grave concern about the situation in
Algeria.
I had several discussions with Algeria's foreign affairs officials
to inform them of the great concern of Canadians and to develop a
program. I also promised to meet with interested groups, and I hope such
meeting will take place soon.
* * *
LAND MINES
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We are now one month away from the Ottawa conference on the
elimination of land mines. Given the extremely powerful leadership
role Canada has taken in this regard, I would like to know what
specific measures are being taken, both for the conference itself
and in terms of post-conference follow-up?
1445
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we work very hard to get
as many countries as possible to come to Ottawa next month. More
than 100 are coming now. The Prime Minister was able to recruit
others last week at the Commonwealth conference. He will be at
the francophone meetings next week, and I am going to the Middle
East to undertake a campaign to get more countries to come.
It is also very important to enlist the entire House of Commons
and the Senate in trying to ratify the treaty at the same time as
we sign it. That would be a very important signal to the
leadership of Canada. Clearly we must begin dedicating serious
resources to the implementation of the treaty.
* * *
PASSPORTS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this spring
two men were charged with the possession of stolen passports.
This past weekend we had 25 blank passports produced by a secure
printer in Ottawa.
Does the minister know about this? Does the minister care about
this? What is the minister going to do about this?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know about it because I was the one who informed
the security forces that they could start investigating the
matter.
I was a little ahead of the hon. member. He is only about six
months late in asking the question. Not only did he not get his
research right, he seems to be out of date in his questions.
It is now being investigated actively and the problem will be
properly handled by the police authorities.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
has had six months to do something about it. Last month he
assured us that passport security was going to be taken care of.
Now we find passports being used as currency in the drug trade.
How many more of these kinds of scandals must we have before the
minister does something about our passports?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is engaged in a little
sleight of hand.
The question we faced last month was the use of forged
passports. It had nothing to do with this incident. People
forged Canadian passports.
On the second issue, when we found out there was a security
breach, we asked for an investigation. The police have it in
hand. We can do no more than make sure those who have undertaken
that are properly charged.
* * *
EDUCATION
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
week the industry minister warned that companies are leaving
Canada because of a shortage of skilled workers, yet the finance
minister claims to be doing more for higher education than any
other government. A human resources development department study
suggests tuition fees are so high they are deterring potential
students.
Will the government explain why it is actuality deterring
potential students and driving jobs out of the country when it
claims to be doing so much for education?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely wrong. We
are working very hard these days talking with lenders, talking
with the provinces, and talking with student associations. We
are well aware of the problem many students have in being able to
borrow money. We are addressing the situation by talking with
everyone that has a say in the matter.
We need an accurate and helpful solution, not just this kind of
statement that does not make any sense.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by the
year 2000, 45% of new jobs will require 16 years of education,
yet a government study shows that since 1980 public transfers for
education have been cut in half, from $6.44 per each dollar of
student fees in 1980 to less than $3 in 1995. Even then the
government continued to cut.
How can the government turn its back on young Canadians by
cutting the very programs that would lead them to jobs in the
future?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite the opposite.
If the hon. member would care to take a look at the last budget,
he will see that the government brought in substantial measures
to help parents save for their children's education through
RESPs. At the same time we brought in a whole new system of tax
credits to enable students to have either their parents or other
people help them pay for their tuition. We doubled the grace
period which students would have to begin to pay back their
student loans. Not only did we do that but we brought in a whole
series—
1450
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, during last Parliament's debate on Bill C-92 the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that the
old system of deduction inclusion was not working for the benefit
of Canadian children. As a result, the Income Tax Act was
amended so that child support payments would no longer be
deductible for the payee nor be included in the recipient's
income.
In theory, these changes seem equitable but in practice it
translates into smaller amounts awarded by judges. Monetary
awards for children are now smaller than what used to be left in
the hands of recipients. Could the minister of revenue explain
to the House why taking money from poor families affected by
divorce is of any benefit to Canadian children?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part of our agenda has been to help
children. Part of the whole program to not let deductions happen
for parents is to ensure that the children get more money. This
is part of the children agenda we, including the Minister of
Justice, have put forward.
We will ensure that the children of Canada are protected through
the child poverty program. We will also ensure that all funds go
to children. Is this member saying that for those people who pay
maintenance fees, after tax money or before tax money should go
toward children? He should be clear on what his position is.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the former
Minister of Justice told the Senate committee that tax changes
provide Ottawa with additional revenue. This means that the
children of divorced parents have less, but the government has
more.
Can the Minister of National Revenue tell the House how much
money divorced families are now giving the Minister of Finance and
explain to us how these changes actually help children?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon.
member that the purpose of our reforms and the purpose of the
reform entered into by my predecessor was to ensure that children
of divorced families get more. I assure the hon. member that my
department is watching very carefully the implementation and
application of the guidelines. If there appear to be any
problems we will be dealing with them.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a new federal study states that global
warming will adversely affect the climate on the prairies: drier
summers, thinning forests. As a farmer I would like the minister
of agriculture to tell us in concrete terms what he is doing to
protect Canada's soil and water systems.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department has been actively involved
in protecting Canada's fragile environment.
Recently we announced the $10 million national soil and water
conservation program. That $10 million will be distributed by
adaptation councils and other similar groups across the country
to conserve and enhance soil and water stability and quality, to
conserve biodiversity and to deal with any adverse effects the
uses of farm inputs may have.
The province of Ontario was the first to come forward with its
application and I have presented it with a $625,000 cheque.
* * *
CORRECTIONS CANADA
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
last two and a half months three violent offenders have escaped
from the new minimum security aboriginal healing centre at
Hobbema, Alberta. Two have been apprehended and one is still at
large. Why does Corrections Canada refuse to alert the public
when an escape occurs from this institution?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the facility in Hobbema is one of which Corrections
Canada is quite proud. It introduced new ways of dealing with
aboriginal offenders. I specifically remember the hon. member
attended the opening with much fanfare.
We are very aware of any incident of that kind that occurs
inside an institution and are taking action.
* * *
[Translation]
TOBACCO ACT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, several times
now I have asked the Minister of Health if he intended to take
other sports and cultural events besides the Grand Prix into
account in his bill to amend the Tobacco Act, and each time the
minister has refused to answer.
1455
Will the minister admit that a bill to amend the Tobacco Act
that did not take all sports and cultural events into account would
create a completely discriminatory situation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have not yet introduced the amendment. I intend to do so shortly.
I would like to advise the hon. member simply to wait. I will
introduce the amendment when it is ready.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government has finally learned what Canadians have known for
some time. While the gross domestic product may be rising, the
social health of Canadians has actually declined. The
government's index on social health shows that unemployment,
falling real wages and increases in child poverty continue to
plague our country.
Will the Minister of Finance commit today to improving the
social health of Canadians? Will he and his government set
targets and timetables to reduce unemployment and pursue them
with the same determination and vigour that he pursued targets
for deficit reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are concerned with all of the social indicators that
apply to Canadians. The prime motivation for the clean-up of the
nation's finances was to put the government in a situation where
it can address those things.
I am sure the hon. member knows that Canadians suffered from the
trauma of a terrible recession from 1989 to 1992 and it took a
long time for us to recover from it. However, as a result of the
actions taken since 1993, all of those indicators have either
stabilized or they have improved substantially.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the defence minister neglects to tell us that without the
inspector general, he is the only link between Parliament and
national defence.
I learned this weekend of allegations of drug use at one of
Canada's top military bases. I also learned that the
investigation made by the military was botched.
Is the government prepared to tell Canadians that it is
satisfied with the results of the investigation, and if not, why
was it stopped?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the investigation has been suspended but
it is not closed. If additional information is brought out, the
investigation will be reopened on the basis of that new
information.
The investigation has been thorough. I do not subscribe to the
preamble of the question in which he said it was botched. The
matter has been investigated. In fact other police forces were
also involved. If there is new information it will be reopened.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister recently announced the immigration levels for next
year.
In my riding of Vancouver Kingsway we always support the
immigrants' families. Is it true the new policy will reduce the
family reunification program?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government continues to be strongly committed to family
reunification. I should point out that independent immigrants
also bring families with them when they come into this country.
The other thing is that applications on families are on demand.
We have no quota. However, the family reunification numbers have
gone down primarily due to a change of classification with
families as a definition over the last number of years.
A legislative review is taking place. The report will be tabled
at the end of December. Perhaps the hon. member and other
members of the House would like to participate in discussing how
we might define family reunification in the future.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday the supreme court gave the power to this House
to protect fetal rights. The Minister of Justice said she would
do nothing.
Our jails, our detox units and our psych units are filled with
the broken minds of people who have been damaged before birth.
Is this minister going to do something to protect children
before birth or is she and the government going to continue to do
nothing?
1500
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out the fact that the
Supreme Court of Canada did not give that power to the Parliament
of Canada. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada talked about
provincial legislatures.
I remind the hon. member that what we are dealing with is
a very important issue of health. Therefore I suggest that
perhaps he talk to the provincial Government of Manitoba in
relation to legislative responses dealing with health and child
welfare.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of members to
the presence in the gallery of Dr. Valsta Parkanova, Minister of
Justice of the Czech Republic.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I draw the attention of members also to
the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ernesto Suarez Mendes, member
of the National Assembly of the People's Power of the Republic of
Cuba and Secretary-General.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I bring this point of order to the House related to our need to
ask ministers relative questions.
In a ruling from March 4, 1986 the Speaker of the House
ruled:
Hon. members may not realize it but questions are actually put
to the government. The government decides who will answer.
Mr. Speaker, we were merely making suggestions to the government
as to who should answer in this House today and why. On two
different occasions you ruled once in this party's favour, the
second time against this party.
On May 8, 1986 the same Speaker stated:
Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain
minister; but it cannot insist that that minister rather than
another should answer it.
Again, the decision lies with the government in the House, but
we are not precluded from making suggestions. We should not be
muzzled from making suggestions in this House.
The government may rise in opposition of this point of order and
use citation 412 which supports perhaps the Speaker's position in
your second decision today. However, it was a ruling from 1968.
There have been a number of changes to the way question period is
conducted, including many Speaker's rulings and committee reports
on this subject since then. It is outdated, much like this
government.
Political ministers are an excepted reality and they should be
accountable to this House. This is at the basis of our
Parliamentary system. The government seeks ways to avoid
accountability and this is just another attempt by the government
to hide those outdated, obscure issues and points it has on
issues relative to today.
1505
I note a little while ago in this House a member rose and asked
a question of this government about the Kyoto conference. The
minister of agriculture rose to answer that question. In fact,
it was very similar to the issue that we had earlier in the House
and yet you allowed it.
I refer to Beauchesne's citation 410:
In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of
more recent conditions and precedents. It was observed that:
(6) The greatest possible freedom should be given to Members
consistent with the other rules and practices.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you revisit the issue in this House
today and allow us in future and even in the next question period
to question the minister from Alberta on issues relevant to this
House and to that issue.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, I had also sent
notice to the Speaker that I wished to address a point of order,
the same one of course.
The point I want to raise is twofold. First is the whole matter
of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the
member for Edmonton North. Second and attached to that is the issue
of what I believe to be language that the Speaker might want to
look at in relation to something that was said by the hon. member
for Edmonton North.
Getting back to the first point that I raise, the relevant
citations of Beauchesne's, it has just been said by the House
leader of the official opposition that a question can be answered
by any minister.
That, of course, has been ruled on consistently in the past. In
other words, the questions are asked of the government and the
government, if it so chooses, can then delegate any minister to
answer. That is quite properly cited in citation 410.
The proper citation is in fact citation 412. The proposition is
the following one. Can a member ask any question of a minister
whether or not it is in his or her area of ministerial
responsibility? Quite clearly the answer to that is no.
Citation 412 of Beauchesne's says:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity,
such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province,
or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
Journals,October 16, 1968.
I had someone research Journals for me and I want to read
to members very briefly the applicable paragraph. I read
selectively here in the text for the purpose of brevity. It says
a ruling was then made to the effect that a question must be
addressed to a minister in relation to his administrative
responsibilities.
I read further, and the House might want to pay particular
attention to this portion. It says the very limited ambit of the
previous ruling was to the effect that a minister may be asked
questions related to a department for which he has ministerial
responsibility or acting ministerial responsibility, but a
minister cannot be asked nor can he answer a question in another
capacity such as being responsible for a province or part of a
province or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
The point I am making here is that an opposition member or any
member's asking a question to a minister knowing the minister is
unable to answer, according to our rules, and then making
editorial remarks to let the record show that the minister
refused to answer is not only against the standing orders of this
House but there is a question of political ethics the Speaker
might want to look at.
On the whole issue of the language used in this House by the
hon. member for Edmonton North, I invite the Chair to look at
this as well.
1510
The hon. member for Edmonton North in the past has complained
and the House has admonished members for referring to members
inappropriately or for using language which was not deemed
appropriate. The hon. member for Edmonton North will remember
what I am referring to and I do not intend to repeat it on the
floor of the House.
To attribute to someone certain characteristics of an animal on
the floor of this House is wrong. It has been said to be wrong
in the House by the hon. member for Edmonton North and by the
Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I invite you to examine that very closely because I
believe that is similarly unparliamentary.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have absolutely no recollection of saying anything. I do not
know what this member is talking about. If for any reason I said
something about animalistic, I will apologize—
The Speaker: I want to hear the point of order we are
discussing. I will hear the hon. Reform whip and then I will
hear the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
have heard two sides of the story. I believe that when you check
Beauchesne's you will find that both the House leader for the
government and the House leader for the official opposition have
quoted that portion of Beauchesne's accurately.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you in your ruling to consider two
things. First, the ruling which was read from Beauchesne's
referred to activity in 1968, times almost in another era.
Nowadays when ministers are assigned responsibilities by the
prime minister they are assigned extensive responsibilities, in
some cases in provincial arenas.
For example, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the case
of the infrastructure program where no infrastructure money,
billions of dollars, can be approved without the minister in
charge of a province signing off for it. In other words, it is
not fair in today's reality to say to the official opposition you
cannot ask questions about that person's provincial
responsibilities when billions of dollars of taxpayer moneys are
signed off by the appropriate provincial minister.
I have dealt in my province with the minister of fisheries, who
has dealt with transit bus funding in my riding. They may be
totally unrelated but I have asked questions in written form and
I would hope I could ask in the House of Commons if that minister
is responsible for signing off or not signing off for this kind
of money.
I believe it is the privilege of an opposition party to ask
questions germane to that minister's provincial responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take into account the
different era we are working in today. I am not sure if the
proceedings of the House were even televised in 1968. They
probably were not. It is now a different era. We have a
different political reality. I would ask you to consider today's
reality as you read Beauchesne's.
My second point is that if the government has the right, and I
think it does and should, to assign questions to different
ministers, I would ask for a bit of tit for tat. I am not sure
if that is in Beauchesne's. It seems to me that the government
has the privilege of assigning to anyone in its cabinet the
answering of any question under any jurisdiction on any issue of
the day. We have seen it happen when we asked a question of the
defence minister and the defence minister did not want to answer
it so the government gave it to someone else on the other end of
the row. When that happens that means the jurisdiction is
totally different from the main jurisdiction of that minister.
If they are allowed to just pick and choose who they want to
answer a question, often for political reasons, then I think we
should have the privilege on this side of the House to direct our
questions to whomever we wish on that side.
They may not choose to answer. That is their privilege, but we
certainly should have the privilege to direct our questions to
whomever we want on that side.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Reform member who has just spoken has totally
misunderstood what happens when ministers answer questions.
They answer questions with respect to their departmental
responsibilities or as acting ministers, designated as such in
the absence of the departmental minister. It is not just a
matter of random choice by the prime minister or acting prime
minister in the House.
1515
If the hon. member is so interested in Beauchesne's, I direct
the hon. member and, with respect, you, Sir, to citation 416
which states in part:
Reform members may say that is a citation going back many years
and they may want to rely, as the House leader of the Reform
Party has just done, on citation 410 which states:
In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of more
recent conditions and precedents. It was observed that—
Then the hon. House leader read No. 6:
The greatest possible freedom should be given to Members
consistent with the other rules and practices.
If he wants to live or die by citation 410 then he had better
read its sections 16 and 17:
(16) Ministers may be questioned only in relation to current
portfolios.
(17) Ministers may not be questioned with respect to party
responsibilities.
I submit Reform members were totally out of order, pressing the
Minister of Justice to answer because she is the senior Liberal
from Alberta. This is totally contrary to the very citation on
which the hon. Reform House leader bases his case. If he wants
to live or die by No. 6, he has to live and in fact die by the
words of sections 16 and 17.
Hon. Reform members are out of order. Hon. members know what
the rules are. They should be questioned as to why in order to
give a misleading impression, not necessarily deliberately, they
are raising the idea the hon. Minister of Justice is unwilling to
answer.
I am sure she would be delighted to answer, but unlike my hon.
friends she has respect for parliament and wants to live by the
rules and precendents of the House.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I do not want to step into the sandbox but I thought I might try.
I will be careful not to use traditional metaphors like quiet as
a mouse for fear that I might become the object of simulated
indignation.
I would like to offer what I hope will be a helpful comment. I
watched the exchanges carefully and watched you, Mr. Speaker.
While on the one hand we want to maintain that there is an
ability on the part of opposition members to ask regional
ministers questions about their regions, there is a case to be
made that the way in which the questions were being asked today
in the House of Commons left open questions as to the
appropriateness of the way the questions were being put, for
instance, with respect to “senior Liberal ”, et cetera, and
asking the Minister of Justice what was her position as opposed
to the government's position. There were a number of ways in
which the question was being asked that made the questions,
technically speaking, inappropriate.
I just want to put on record that I think there are appropriate
ways to ask regional ministers questions about their region.
Perhaps in your ruling on this, Mr. Speaker, you could advise the
House on the proper way to do this so that people who are trying
to do this can do it properly the next time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief. The issue we are getting at here is
accountability of ministers. I think your initial instincts on
how to handle the situation were correct.
The minister we are discussing is represented in Alberta as both
the Minister of Justice and as the senior Alberta minister in
cabinet. Albertans are invited to make representations to that
minister on all kinds of issues and that minister is used to
deliver all kinds of messages in Alberta on behalf of the
government that are outside her portfolio.
1520
We know that all kinds of Albertans have made representations to
the government through that minister on the issue of global
warming, gas taxes, energy taxes, emissions and greenhouse taxes.
We believe it is therefore appropriate to hold the minister
accountable in that role in the House as well as for her formal
portfolio.
If the minister wanted to say in response to our questions that
she has passed those representations on, that she has taken this
position herself, that she has attempted to reconcile these
positions in this way, or if she chose to say nothing, that is
her prerogative. However, we feel we at least have the right to
hold her accountable for that other administrative position which
she is purported to have in the province of Alberta.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member rising on the same point
of order?
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
point I would like you to consider when you are considering these
other points.
The justice minister is also the Attorney General of Canada and
as such is the chief legal counsel for the government. She is
called upon by all ministers when it comes to enacting
legislation, including any legislation on the greenhouse effect
issue.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider that point as well when
you take the other points under consideration.
The Speaker: Is the Deputy Prime Minister seeking the
floor?
Hon. Herb Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to comment
briefly on what was just said by the Reform member in question.
There is a clear precedent that the Minister of Justice, even in
her capacity as attorney general, cannot be asked to give what
amounts to a legal opinion in the House.
The questions that were put to her were not with respect to the
legalities of legislation or policy on the greenhouse gas effect.
They were put to her as the senior minister in Alberta. With all
due respect to the hon. member who just got up, the point he
raised is not consistent with the rules and practices of the
House.
Even though the precedent cited by the government House leader
was stated in 1968, I must say it has been upheld many, many,
many times since then, including by yourself, Mr. Speaker. I ask
you to take a look at the way you have added precedential weight
to the precedent of 1968.
The Speaker: This is new information, I take it.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is not about tradition. This is about change.
With regard to your decision, Mr. Speaker, and the timeliness of
it, we have full intentions of pursuing the minister on this
accountability question. We would like to do that as soon as
possible, probably even tomorrow.
We would like to ask that you deliver the decision on this as
soon as possible, preferably before question period tomorrow.
The Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the
three sides of the argument, with the member of New Democratic
Party coming in.
At question period your Speaker has the rules as they are laid
out in Beauchesne's. They are the rules that we have all agreed
to here in the House of Commons. Sometimes the Speaker is asked
to make rulings that take us down a different path.
During the course of question period, in the preamble,
notwithstanding the fact that they are short preambles these
days, I am willing to give as much leeway as I can.
As as matter of fact, if I could criticize myself, it is because
sometimes I give a little bit too much leeway both in the
questions and the answers.
1525
I did not know for sure where the first questions were going and
it seemed to me that it might fit in. Perhaps in hindsight, as I
review all of the words said in Hansard, I might want to
reconsider.
I would like to quote another citation which I do not think has
been cited today. It is in Beauchesne's at page 123 where it
states at citation 420:
The Speaker has stated, “Of course, the Chair will allow a
question to be put to a certain Minister; but it cannot insist
that that Minister rather than another should answer it”.
When a question is put my general guideline is that a question
is put of course to the government. The government usually
assigns ministers who will be in charge of a certain
administrative function. In the past other Speakers have ruled,
and I have ruled myself, that the question must go to the
administrative responsibility of the particular minister.
The question has been opened today. Outside the administrative
responsibilities it seems now that we or some members of the
House would like to open the question of regional political
responsibilities. I am loathe to proceed down this particular
path because again in my mind I conjure up perhaps questions
where every minister would be asked, for example—and I use this
only as a hypothetical case to explain myself—what is their
feeling on capital punishment or what is their feeling on
abortion. At what point in there do I intervene or do I and did
indeed intervene.
I am deciding that I will follow the paths of previous Speakers
and as much as possible—again I leave myself a little bit of
leeway but not too much—if a question is posed directly to a
minister, as my guideline, it should deal as much as possible
with the administrative responsibility of the minister in
question and not with a political responsibility.
If the House in its wisdom chooses to change the rules which you
would like the Speaker to operate under then I of course am the
servant of the House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona has asked that the
Speaker perhaps give an indication as to how a regional minister
might be approached about certain information. It is not the
responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Commons to indicate
to members how they should or should not put their questions nor
how they should or should not answer the questions. I would
leave that to the genius of the members of Parliament, both in
putting and answering their questions, so that they would be
proper.
If in the decisions that I made today, perhaps in the first
part, I was a little bit too lenient then I was; I accept
responsibility for that. But my course action specifically will
be that if a specific question is put to a specific minister it
should deal with a specific administrative responsibility, and I
would rule that there is no point of order.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
1530
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-270, an act to provide defined contribution
pensions for the public service, the Canadian forces and the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to be managed and invested by a
private sector manager, and to amend the Income Tax Act and
certain other acts in consequence thereof.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's
bill, the federal public service pension act. This bill will
place the superannuation pension plans of the public service, the
Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on sound
financial footing by placing employee contributions in private
sector pension funds at arm's length from government.
It will be funded by employees' contributions at the same rate
as before, with the option of contributing additional money. A
pension account will be held for each employee within the fund.
The private sector fund manager will be selected by a committee
representing the employees.
On retirement a lump sum may be taken with remaining funds
placed in an annuity for the employee. Family benefits will be
prescribed by regulation. Contributions are to be deducted from
taxable income. Existing and accrued superannuation benefits
will remain intact and protected. The new pension scheme will
come into force on January 1, 1999.
Public servants, members of the Canadian forces and the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police new pension fund will be funded with
their contributions and real dollars will be invested reaping
pension rewards.
Parliament may opt to appropriate funds for the new pension
funds but seeks no new spending by Parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
REFORM'S TERRITORIAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-271, an act respecting the territorial
integrity of Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege once
again to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
introduce my private member's bill entitled “Reform's
territorial protection act”.
This bill seeks to protect the territorial integrity of our
country. The purpose of this enactment is to affirm Canada's
sovereign indivisibility. The Constitution of Canada forms a
federal state that is one and indivisible. This serves the
interests of all Canadians. My bill is based on the fact that
there is no provision in our Constitution for the withdrawal from
the federation of a province or a territory.
The good people of Surrey Central whom I represent with honour
want to accomplish three things within this bill.
First of all, we want to ensure that the Canadian federation may
not be deprived of any part of Canada's territory except with
Canada's consent, by due process of constitutional amendment.
Second, we want to ensure that no province or territory may
unilaterally withdraw from the federation.
Finally, we want to ensure that no province or territory either
unilaterally or in conjunction with any other province or
territory can attempt to or declare its intention to secede from
the federation and form a separate state.
My constituents and I believe that Canada is constitutionally
sovereign and indivisible. We feel strongly that no province or
territory shall initiate, authorize, sponsor or permit a
referendum to be held on any question purporting to seek a
mandate for withdrawal or indeed the intent to withdraw from our
federation without the federation's consent.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1535
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act respecting conscientious
objection to the use of taxes for military purposes.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to introduce this
private member's bill, known as the conscientious objection act.
The purpose of the bill is to permit individuals who object on
conscientious grounds to paying taxes that might be used for
military purposes to direct that an amount equivalent to a
prescribed percentage of the income tax they pay in a year be
diverted to a special account established by this bill. The bill
would not constrain in any way the ability of government to spend
tax dollars as it sees fit.
In introducing this bill I pay special tribute to Conscience
Canada Inc., particularly Orion Smith and Kate Penner, to the
Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, or
Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee and the Conference of
Mennonites, et aussi Nos impôts pour la paix.
Finally, I would note that a great deal of work and thought has
been put into this bill. I hope that it will commend itself to
members of the House and that it will be adopted in this
Parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition signed by scores of public servants and others
who live and work in the Peterborough riding. These people would
like to expedite the payment in full of the moneys owing for pay
equity since 1983.
This is a long petition and I know that according to the rules I
can only summarize it. The petitioners say that the federal
government has refused to abide by its own pay equity legislation
and that there should be no negotiations as the federal Supreme
Court of Canada has ruled that the government legally must pay
these moneys. The petitioners say that they have not had a pay
increase since 1988 and that their income has declined due to
inflation.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the
President of the Treasury Board to expedite the payment in full
of all moneys owing for pay equity since 1983.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
Hon. Martin Cauchon (on behalf of the Solicitor General of
Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
1540
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me
to speak to the act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Superannuation Act.
This bill will extend the protection provided for RCMP members
in the event of disease or death connected with employment, so as
to cover any death, disease or injury suffered by RCMP members
assigned to a special duty area.
I would like to take a few minutes to explain how this
amendment meets an urgent need.
Members of the RCMP, like other
Canadian employees, are entitled, under a government program, to
benefits in the event of disease, disability or death attributable
to their employment.
A distinction is made, depending on whether or not the disease,
disability or death is connected with employment.
In Canada, it is usually very easy to determine whether or not
this is the case: it is connected with employment if it takes
place in the work place, for example in a workshop, on a
construction site or in an office. Injuries attributable to
employment are those suffered during a work shift.
When a shift is over, the worker leaves his or her place of
work and returns to private life.
In the case of those taking part in peacekeeping missions in
dangerous zones outside Canada, however, the distinction between
the periods during which they are on duty and those when they are
not becomes blurred.
The bill acknowledges this fact: Canadian peacekeeping forces
never really stop serving and running risks, even when their shift
is over.
Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, certain geographic
areas outside Canada may be designated by the governor in council
as areas where the members of Canada's armed forces are exposed to
risks not generally associated with peacetime military service.
These areas are known as special duty areas.
Under the terms of the present act, the onus is on the
employee to prove disability is attributable to his employment or
service.
When Canada started taking part in international peacekeeping
missions and sending members of the armed forces to areas of armed
conflict, it was acknowledged that it would be unfair to oblige
these individuals or their beneficiaries to prove that injury or
death was attributable to their work and occurred while the
individual was on duty.
Under the Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the
Canadian armed forces injured or taken ill in special duty areas on
peacekeeping missions, or their beneficiaries if they are killed,
can count on the presumption that any injury or disease incurred
while serving on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area is
work related. This means that military personnel are considered to
be on duty around the clock where benefits relating to employment
or service are concerned, since they may be in danger at any time.
However, RCMP personnel taking part in peacekeeping missions
in dangerous areas, termed special duty areas, even when serving
side by side with Canadian forces personnel, are eligible for
benefits only if their injury or disease occurs during a normally
scheduled period of service.
Whereas a member of the Canadian forces benefits from the
presumption that an injury, disease or loss of life incurred while
serving in a special duty area occurred while he was on duty and is
attributable to his service, the onus is on a member of the RCMP to
prove that this is the case.
The proposed amendments will solve the problem of the
differences in treatment between members of the Canadian forces and
members of the RCMP. At the present time, for instance, members of
both forces are on a mission to Haiti, which has been declared a
special duty area.
In accordance with the Special Duty Area Pension Order,
members of the Canadian armed forces are considered to be on duty
24 hours a day with respect to the risk of injury, disease or
death.
1545
Members of the RCMP, however, are considered to be on duty
only during their shift, and are therefore treated differently than
military personnel participating in the same mission, under the
same conditions, and exposed to the same dangers.
[English]
In addition to disability benefits, Canadian forces members
injured or taken ill while serving in special duty areas on
peacekeeping missions are also entitled to the benefits provided
under the veterans independence program. This program funds such
services as are necessary to maintain a member in his or her home
as an alternative to institutional care. For example,
housekeeping services or modifications to a house to accommodate
wheelchair access are paid for through this program.
These special pension benefits take into account the increased
risk associated with peacekeeping duties. The amendment will
extend the same kind of program to disabled RCMP peacekeepers.
This amendment reflects the changing role of peacekeeping and how
Canada, a country respected worldwide for its commitment to
peacekeeping, has provided what many countries need most to
sustain peace, a respect for the rule of law and a method of
fairly enforcing that law.
With the RCMP's help, a troubled country may be able to build on
the traditions and expertise of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
to create a new respect for law enforcement and the law itself.
[Translation]
This bill is inspired by a desire for equity. It deserves to
be passed. It deserves to be passed because it ensures equality of
treatment for all those taking part in peacekeeping missions,
whether they are military or RCMP personnel. It deserves to be
passed because it clearly acknowledges that the RCMP's contribution
to peacekeeping has the same value as that of the Canadian Forces.
Finally, it deserves to be passed because a member of the RCMP
who serves his or her country in a peacekeeping mission ought never
to have to worry about protection in the event of illness,
disability or death.
Our fondest hope, of course, is that not one member of either
the RCMP or the Canadian Forces taking part in a peacekeeping
mission in a special duty area will be injured, disabled, or even
killed. Should this happen, however, it would be no more than fair
for the additional protection available under this bill to apply to
RCMP personnel and their families.
I am sure that all hon. members acknowledge the importance and
the fairness of the amendments proposed to the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police Superannuation Act and that we can count on the
support of all political parties to get this bill passed quickly.
I thank them in advance.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition
concerning a matter of great importance.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act spells out
in black and white what benefits the members are entitled to
receive. The benefits pertinent to the act and thus affected by
this amendment relate to the injury or death of an RCMP member.
Bill C-12 addresses the issue of whether a member of the RCMP was
on duty if he or she is injured or killed while serving outside
of Canada's international boundaries in a peacekeeping role.
Section 32.1 of subsection 2(a) identifies how and where a
foreign location becomes designated as a special duty area. “The
Governor in Council may, by order, designate as a special duty
area any geographic area outside Canada where members of the
force serve as part of a peacekeeping mission and may be exposed
to hazardous conditions not normally associated with service in
peacetime”.
1550
I appreciate that the act is not the place for minute internal
RCMP policy which will be written implementing this amendment. I
would like to have the solicitor general and the government
assure the House that the following points will be covered as
this policy is written:
First, the RCMP division staff relations representative, DSRR,
is part of the team writing the policy. Second, that a member of
a member's estate be entitled to select as his or her
representative in any claim the counsel provided by the pension
commission or a lawyer of his or her choice. If a lawyer of his
or her choice is selected, that the RCMP or the federal
government pay the legal fees in question.
I make note of this because a former member of the RCMP and the
current member of the House, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake, was
represented by a pension commission counsel in Winnipeg regarding
a disability suffered on duty. The commission's counsel, who is
supposed to work for the member, was less than adequate to say
the least. His inadequate representation resulted in the member
being denied benefits. The point is that government supplied
counsel is not always of the same calibre that can sometimes be
obtained privately.
A member serving in a special duty area who is injured or killed
has to have counsel of his or her choosing or choosing by the
executor. The member of his or her estate may not be able to pay
for the private counsel to defend the interests from a government
body adjudicating these pension cases which is always acting on
behalf of government interests, not necessarily those of the
member.
Third, the question of “may be exposed to hazardous conditions
not normally associated with service in peacetime” is one that
requires spelling out. I will use the example of exposure to
AIDS and other diseases that are easily transmitted via bodily
fluids.
Members of the RCMP are exposed to many of these diseases in
their on-duty normal workday in Canada. While serving in a
special duty area it is imperative that the member have 100%
coverage for any disease contracted, and for the government to
not try to avoid paying benefits by relying on the fact that
exposure to diseases in the special duty area is at the same risk
level as exposure normally associated with service in peacetime.
Conditions in some of these war zones are quite awful at times
and who knows to what a member can be exposed as he does his best
to try to mitigate difficult circumstances. It is only fair that
the government recognize that.
Fourth, the policy must also spell out what happens if an RCMP
officer is given a 48-hour rest period, for example in Haiti, and
he is injured while engaged in leisure activities. I would ask
the minister to clarify whether the RCMP's superannuation act
would pay benefits under these circumstances. I certainly hope
it would.
The members of the RCMP who go on these peacekeeping missions
are volunteers. They are dedicated individuals who care deeply
about the people in other lands less fortunate than most
Canadians. As volunteers, it is very important that they be
treated fairly and generously by the pension act, the RCMP and
the government.
I am advised by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, the deputy
critic responsible for the RCMP, that he supports the legislation
as does the Reform Party. Until now, 24 hours on duty coverage
has only been at the good graces of the solicitor general. It is
good to get this protection for the RCMP in writing and in this
bill.
I will take a few minutes to review the situation of the RCMP as
an organization which has been asked to perform duties above and
beyond its normal function. The pension act will play an
important role in the future as the government asks the forces to
take on new assignments.
1555
I understand that there is a possibility the RCMP may be asked
to send police officers to several other areas of conflict in the
world. The future is unknown but it would appear that there will
be other requests. As more missions are taken on, the chances of
RCMP officers being killed or injured increases dramatically.
These peacekeeping duties normally entail monitoring, observing
and training roles. Any member from any province can volunteer.
Unless they are in the middle of an intricate investigation that
cannot be handed over to another member or for some other
personal reasons, most are allowed to go on the mission.
The problem for the RCMP is they are always under establishment
strength so sending these members make the vacancies at home even
more difficult. There is no backfilling of positions vacated for
peacekeeping duties. In many cases, investigations either sit
dormant or proceed at a much slower pace, as they are assigned to
the investigators left on the detachment or to the plain clothes
unit.
While we all endorse the role of the Canadian RCMP in helping in
these troubled areas around the world, they do have a
responsibility and a job to do back home. The government should
ensure that if they continue to take members of the RCMP for this
important role abroad, it fills in the gaps at home to ensure
that justice is properly served.
Finding members to play a monitoring or training role for the
aboriginal police departments is increasingly difficult, as more
and more First Nations take over policing their reserves. If the
government expects the RCMP to participate in these peacekeeping
missions, more budget money will have to be given the RCMP so
more police officers can be hired.
I appreciate that Canada has an international responsibility but
the government has an internal responsibility to keep our streets
safe. The multimillions of dollars being wasted on gun control
through the Firearms Act could be given to the RCMP where
Canadians know it would do some good by solving RCMP staffing
problems.
It is interesting to note that in Haiti, where RCMP officers are
serving at the moment, the average citizen does not have a rifle
or a shotgun, only the government troops have one. I wonder how
abusive the Haitian government would be towards its people if
they had guns and ammunition?
I have heard that it will take approximately 150 RCMP officers
just to implement the regulations concerning the Firearms Act
which does not include those who will be investigating
non-criminal Canadians for violation of these regulations.
Therefore the number will be even more than that.
I am certainly pleased that the RCMP Superannuation Act is being
amended to fully protect the men and women who serve the country
in foreign lands. Canada has been lucky that there have been
only minor injuries to date on the missions to Namibia, Bosnia
and Haiti. I would strongly urge the government and the RCMP to
conduct an in depth study on the effect that these missions are
having on the RCMP members, the straining of resources and what
is needed to ensure that the RCMP can continue to meet its
responsibilities at home and abroad.
As someone who has travelled abroad, I would like to add that
the reputation of Canada and the RCMP is second to none. We are
definitely filling a very major role both in peacekeeping and in
training police officers to ensure that the peace, which we
hopefully can create, will be to some degree a lasting peace
between the forces which are fighting each other.
There are a couple of issues in the bill which gave me a little
bit of concern. While the government has stated that RCMP
officers who are killed or injured on duty will have their
pension benefits protected, there does not seem to have been too
much imagination put into the writing of the bill.
1600
I think for example of the Vietnam war. We now find that many
people who served in the Vietnam war suffered seriously because
of a chemical called agent orange. It took many years before the
government recognized its responsibilities regarding the damage
caused by agent orange. We must remember that in this particular
case it was the American government that dropped agent orange on
its own people. Therefore it had a double liability of protecting
these people and providing indemnification to these people, but
it took many years before it would even recognize there was a
problem.
I would not want to think we would have the same problem here,
if an RCMP officer or a member of our armed forces suffered
health consequences, that down the road the government would
fight all the way to not compensate that person accordingly,
rather than respect his dignity and his contribution to helping
society.
I refer again to agent orange. Unfortunately the offspring of
those service people are also suffering. There is nothing in
this bill which would recognize that type of liability. With the
modern chemicals that we have, who can tell when problems will
show up? One would have thought that in a two-page bill amending
the pension act the government could have allowed for that kind
of eventuality. It does not take too much thinking to do that.
I also think of the problem known as the gulf war syndrome.
Soldiers who came back after having fought that war are saying
there is a serious problem which is being denied by their
governments in the United States and in Britain.
The point I want to make is that the government should not fight
these people all the way. They have put their life on the line
for freedom and for democracy. They have willingly gone to
protect the rights and values which we appreciate so much in this
country. When they returned home, having suffered the
consequences of that volunteerism and that commitment to fight
for democracy and freedom, they found that the very government
which swore to uphold those rights was denying them the
recognition of their claims.
I would hope that these types of things would not happen here in
Canada. However, unfortunately, I am not so sure.
Disability shows up in many ways. I think of one RCMP officer
in my riding who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
These are difficult things to diagnose, but I would certainly
hope that when the regulations are written regarding this bill
that these types of problems are recognized as befitting for
compensation for those who are prepared to put their lives on the
line to uphold those things we consider near and dear to our
values.
Changing the subject but still on the concept of pensions for
the RCMP, I would like to bring to light an issue regarding RCMP
pensions which I find is rather unfortunate. It happened a
little over a year ago.
Several retired RCMP officers received a letter in the mail from
the pension department saying that a mistake had been made in
calculating their pensions. These RCMP officers had retired
between 1970 and 1974. Twenty years later they received a letter
in the mail saying “We made a mistake in calculating your
pension. Please find enclosed a cheque to make up the
difference. We have short changed you all these years”.
It amounted to approximately $10,000 each.
That is a considerable windfall for someone who has been retired
for 20 years or more, to receive a cheque from the government,
less taxes of course, for $10,000. And it was with not so much
as an apology but an admission that their pension cheques had
been short changed all these years and that they would make the
necessary adjustments from here on in and their pension cheques
would be increased accordingly.
1605
Imagine their dismay when a year or so later—and we are talking
about last September, just a couple of months ago—when these
same people received another letter from the government saying
“Guess what? Our first letter was a mistake. Please send the
money back. We are going to reduce your pension cheque back to
what it was before”.
This type of incompetence is something I really do not
particularly like. As the chairman of the public accounts
committee, I think the government should take note of the people
who have done this, who thought they were on to something, did
not check their work properly and wrote cheques in excess of a
million dollars from taxpayers' money, sent them off to retired
RCMP officers, giving them the idea that they had received some
kind of windfall then asking for the money back. They even went
so far as to track down the beneficiaries of deceased members to
pay the cheques out to them. Now we find there was absolutely no
legal basis for doing so.
Basically what had happened was that prior to 1975 when someone
retired or took early retirement from the RCMP, they were
entitled to a pension based on their number of complete years of
service. Partial years did not count. Starting in 1975 a partial
year counted as a full year for pensionable service. Therefore
the deduction for that particular year was no longer considered.
It made a difference of 5% because the deduction was 5% per year.
In the words of the director general of the department, a
zealous employee had gone back and discovered—and if I may say
discovered in quotations—this error and decided that these
retired RCMP officers had been short changed all these years.
I asked the director general in charge of the department why the
change of heart. The change of heart and the re-checking of the
figures was because one particular retired RCMP officer said that
if he had been short changed all these years was he not owed a
little bit of interest along the way. When he asked for his
interest they decided that perhaps he had a point but that they
had better re-check the figures first. When they went back and
re-checked the figures they found that because the legislation
had changed in 1975 the way they calculated pensions had changed
in 1975 and that the previous calculation was perfectly correct.
We have a situation where they have now gone back to 119 retired
RCMP officers and their beneficiaries and said “Please send the
money back”. Imagine this type of situation taking place. It
is time the government recognized that competency goes along with
accountability, that efficiency is not the only important thing,
that they have a responsibility to do their jobs properly.
Imagine the dismay of these retired RCMP officers who each now
have to come up with a cheque for $10,000 on their pensions.
Their pensions are going to be reduced back to what they were
before, a 5% reduction now that they have become accustomed to a
little bit higher standard of living. With one stroke of a pen
it all disappears down the drain.
If they have gone out and purchased a new car or something else
with the $10,000, what are we to do, write the money off?
Perhaps. But then I ask, what about the civil servant who
authorized this? Do members think that his career should continue
on as if nothing had happened, that the taxpayers are out a
million dollars, so what?
A million dollars is a major situation.
In the private sector if someone says to their employer “Oops, I
just cost you a million dollars by mistake”, should he continue
on in his job? What confidence do we have that he is going to
perform his duties competently and effectively. Will we now have
to look over his shoulder to find out whether other decisions he
has made are much less than adequate and have cost the taxpayers
many tens of thousands or even millions of dollars?
1610
I wanted to raise that point, but at the same time I do not want
to finish on a down note. I want to finish on an up note for the
RCMP. I want to congratulate them as a force. I want to
congratulate them as a Canadian icon around the world. Their
reputation enhances the reputation of Canada anywhere I have
been.
Members of the RCMP are wonderful. They have a reputation of
having performed under difficult circumstances for more than 100
years. We know that as they continue to do their duty both here
and abroad, in war zones as peacekeepers, that they will continue
to enhance the reputation of Canada and Canadians. We are proud
of them.
It is only right that we should support this legislation. It
will ensure that as they stand up for democracy and for what we
believe to be right, that should they be injured or killed in the
performance of those duties we will stand behind them and their
families and ensure they are protected.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
deficit reduction.
The member for Berthier—Montcalm.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak to this bill, which, I
see, is of particular interest to the government opposite.
I would like to commend the member for Huron—Bruce, who seems to
have put considerable weight on the government's shoulders this
afternoon in the debate of an essentially simple bill, it is true,
but one that warrants some comment in order to set out the position
of the Bloc Quebecois.
I realize I have 40 minutes, Madam Speaker, but I can tell you
right now that I will not use all my time, because we have just
found a consensus in the House in support of this bill, which is an
excellent bill, because it remedies something that is unfair to the
members of the RCMP who took part in peacekeeping missions around
the world.
In certain countries, for example Haiti, Bosnia and Uganda,
the RCMP were actively involved in peacekeeping missions.
This role was all the more important because in some of these
countries the RCMP helped local governments set up police forces
similar to those found in democratic countries such as Canada or
Quebec.
Yes, there must be encouragement for this kind of mission.
Yes, there must be support for RCMP members who volunteered their
services, who agreed to travel to foreign countries and share their
experience by giving courses and training to the inhabitants of
these countries so that they could have a good police force. They
must be encouraged in various ways.
It is all very fine and well to rise in the House from time to
time and make ministerial statements in support of these people as
they set out for other countries, but I think it would also be good
if RCMP members who are leaving Canada for a short period but an
important one nonetheless also felt supported economically.
Bill C-12 addresses this.
It was realized that there was a certain difference between
members of the RCMP who went on a peacekeeping mission and members
of the armed forces who went as peacekeepers or as part of other
international organizations on similar missions.
1615
It was realized that the men and women of the RCMP were at a
disadvantage on their return with respect to their pensions. This
bill is very straightforward in that it corrects this particular
inequality between the two groups. The bill amends the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act by finally giving
peacekeeping missions by RCMP officers the same recognition as that
given those by members of the Canadian armed forces.
I would like to take this opportunity to echo the sentiments
expressed by all members who have already spoken and thank RCMP
members for the excellent work they are doing and for their
representation of our system outside Canada and Quebec.
I think they should be paid tribute and be encouraged to continue.
One way to encourage them open to us is Bill C-12, which we
are studying today and which shows without a doubt the esteem in
which they are held by the House of Commons.
However, as an opposition party, we are going to do our work
properly. I still have a few questions on this bill. These people
deserve special consideration. They should be put in the same
situation as members of the RCMP who did not leave the country, but
we must not, conversely, penalize those who do not leave.
As I read this bill at the moment, I do not see this. Has
anyone checked? Did anyone do the calculations required to find
out whether we penalize those who stay in the country when we give
this advantage to those who leave Canada to work outside the
country for a time?
Do those who remain have to pay more for those who leave? Is the
government investing more? Where exactly are they going to get the
budget surplus to meet the requirements of this bill?
The answer is not obvious from reading Bill C-12. We need a
clear answer. Will those members of the RCMP who, for personal or
family reasons, choose not to participate in peacekeeping missions
end up losing? We do indeed have to provide some advantage to
those who leave, but we must also think of those who stay behind.
I will be looking for answers to this question, for my own
reassurance and to reassure those involved in the situation.
I have another question as well. Will officers who remain in
Canada have to pay twice for officers on peacekeeping missions who
are injured while abroad, because this does happen? We need to
know how premiums are affected, as well as what happens in the
event of injuries, so that we can determine whether, in the end,
they receive the same treatment.
Another question must be answered. How much does the
Government of Canada pay when it must send these people to other
countries? As you know, when people such as RCMP members travel
abroad on duty, they are paid by the UN. Does the UN contribute
proportionately to this pension fund? This is another thing we do
not know. That will have to be looked into when the bill goes to
committee.
At the beginning of my first term of office, in the 35th
Parliament, I was the critic for the solicitor general and I had
many opportunities to work with members of the RCMP.
I know that those officers—I am not talking about senior officers—who
do such things as going to Haïti or other countries to give
training and assistance are very professional people and believe
strongly in what they are doing. They are also very proud of their
position.
I think that Bill C-12 meets many of these requirements and
that is why, knowing these people as I do, I am pleased to say that
we support Bill C-12 and will vote in favour.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill, and we are going
to try, when it is referred to committee, to verify certain things
with RCMP officials, as well as with the Department of National
Revenue or other government departments, so as to be sure that the
money invested will go to the right place, and that all RCMP
members, whether they travel to other countries or stay in Canada,
are treated fairly.
1620
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do
not believe we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We do not have a
quorum. Call in the members.
[Translation]
After the ringing of the bells:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair notes that there
is a quorum. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre
has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of my party in
support of Bill C-12, an act to amend the RCMP superannuation
act. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
It is our position that this legislation, which gives members of
the RCMP serving abroad as peacekeepers the same benefits as
their counterparts in the armed forces in the event of illness,
injury and death, has been far too long in coming.
While we welcome the introduction of this bill and we urge its
speedy passage, we hope that in future, when we ask our young men
and women to place their lives on the line for their country,
they will not have to worry about their benefits and about our
commitment to them.
We must recognize that when our peacekeepers are serving abroad
in war zones or areas of civil strife or natural disaster, they
do not work eight hour shifts. On the contrary, they are on duty
around the clock, putting their lives at risk for their country
24 hours a day. Bill C-12 recognizes the unique nature of this
job and takes the necessary steps to remedy the unfairness of the
current situation.
Canada is respected around the world for its commitment to peace
and as a leader in peacekeeping nations. We, as representatives
of the people, must ensure that every measure is taken to give
full support to our peacekeepers and their families both at home
and abroad.
This legislation that is intended to provide RCMP members who
serve as peacekeepers the same health benefits as their
counterparts in the armed forces is a step in the right direction
and it is only fair. More must be done to recognize the service
of our peacekeepers and the sacrifices they and their families
make in the name of peace on behalf of all Canadians.
The issue of equity for all of those who serve Canada must be
addressed both at home and abroad, particularly with respect to
the RCMP who currently do not have the same collective bargaining
rights as their brothers and sisters in other law enforcement
agencies across the country.
They do not have the same opportunity to advocate on their own
behalf through free collective bargaining. I hope we get an
opportunity to address that issue in this House before long.
We hear stories of members of the Canadian armed forces and
their families having to use food banks to sustain themselves.
Why is it that men and women who put their lives on the line for
their country and for peace around the world are forced to live
in near poverty conditions when they return home to Canada?
There is something fundamentally wrong when long expected pay
increases for service men and women have been put on hold for
five, six and going on seven years when just last month the
Treasury Board approved huge bonuses for an executive group of
the public service, bonuses of $4,500, even reaching $12,000 per
individual.
Believe me, the significance of this was not lost on the hard
working public service employees. It is hard not to be jaded
when they witness such a clear government bias in favour of the
executive ranks while denying longstanding legally required pay
settlements to the lowest paid workers.
1625
RCMP members of the Canadian peacekeeping forces deserve equal
pay for work of equal value, but so do all public sector
employees.
We can only hope that this spirit of generosity and this new
found sense of fairness on the part of the solicitor general can
be extended to the Treasury Board. Public sector workers have
been waiting for a decade for the federal government to make good
on its obligation to pay equity and they are still waiting.
They are waiting for fairness, they are waiting for equal pay for
work of equal value regardless of their gender. They are a
patient and long suffering group and they have come to realize
that when you are waiting for a fair shake from this government
you had better pack a lunch.
It is timely to address these issues, particularly as this week
is veterans week, a time when all Canadians are encouraged to
reflect on the great sacrifices made by all our members of
the armed forces on behalf of Canada and on behalf of peace
around the world.
We support the government's introduction of Bill C-12 and we
hope that this is the beginning of a renewed commitment to our
peacekeepers and indeed to all Canadians, for this government has
a very long way to go to restore equity and fairness to
Canadians. We in the New Democratic Party on behalf of working
people everywhere will continue to ensure that it does.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from
Winnipeg in supporting Bill C-12, an act to amend the RCMP
superannuation act.
Bill C-12 will amend the RCMP superannuation act to ensure that
the RCMP members serving in special duty areas are automatically
considered to be on duty 24 hours a day and therefore get
complete benefit coverage. At present the act provides for
coverage only during periods of scheduled shifts, which my
colleague from Winnipeg referred to.
As all Canadians would appreciate, when a soldier or an RCMP
officer serves outside Canada on peacekeeping missions they face
all sorts of dangers not just during their duty period but when
they are off duty as well. We have seen many horrific examples
of that around the world over the last couple of decades, in
particular in conflict zones or special duty zones as they are
called.
A special duty area is a designation given to certain geographic
areas where Canadian forces members would be exposed to hazardous
conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime.
Examples of special duty areas for the RCMP would be Haiti and
Bosnia where RCMP members are currently serving on peacekeeping
missions.
This legislation will make RCMP members who serve as
peacekeepers eligible for the same health benefits as military
personnel. The NDP believes it is the only fair thing to do to
include RCMP who are serving in the same areas as armed forces
personnel so that they are eligible for the same benefit
coverage.
Madam Speaker, I represent a district called
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, which you are aware of. The Royal
Canadian Mounted Police training centre is in the constituency,
the depot as we call it in Regina. We have a number of recruits
coming to be trained. We also have a number of families working
at the academy, at the depot, who have served on peacekeeping
missions from time to time. Many police families reside in my
constituency as well. I know many of them personally and many of
them are my neighbours.
I might add that the neighbourhood I live in is probably one of
the safest neighbourhoods and safest constituencies in all of
Canada because we have such a large force, not just RCMP members
but Regina police association members as well, residing in the
district. We are very confident because we feel the
neighbourhood is very safe.
These RCMP officers who serve our country overseas do not just
serve their country but their community with a great deal of
strength, consistency and loyalty.
Bill C-12 recognizes this type of service and sacrifice by
members of the RCMP.
1630
I have worked on a number of issues in House of Commons over the
past four years that are important to the RCMP and to the Regina
Police Association. As a result of my efforts on issues like gun
control, the Young Offenders Act and dealing with young offenders
stealing a lot of autos in Regina, we have been able to make some
strides with respect to making our community much safer overall
in the city of Regina and the province of Saskatchewan. I have
also been very supportive over the years of the collective
bargaining process which the RCMP has sometimes been quite
restricted in.
The bill reminds me of an old saying. It addresses one of the
issues of an old saying I heard a while back that generals who
neglect their soldiers in the battlefield will find it very
difficult to find recruits when the next battle is fought. Bill
C-12 is a very small step toward looking after RCMP members who
serve our country in special duty areas or, as some people refer
to them on occasion, in peacekeeping battlefields. It recognizes
that they should be included and have the same benefits as those
in the military.
I am very pleased to join with my colleagues in the NDP to
support the bill. However I want to raise one issue which saw
the light of day as recently as last week with respect to some of
the pension issues, in particular the RCMP pension issue. The
Solicitor General of Canada indicated that any additional cost
which might be incurred by the change in Bill C-12 would be
assumed within existing RCMP budgets.
The federal government used another $2.6 billion from its
employee pension fund this year to help lower the deficit despite
a storm of controversy over the legality of the manoeuvre. Last
year the government took $2.4 billion, sparking outrage from not
just unions but also pensioners who have banded together to take
the government to court to stop the practice. The RCMP is
involved with that court action.
I am very concerned about this latest action by the government.
It is basically taking a pension fund and using it not for the
purpose for which it was established, to provide pensions,
whether disability pensions or retirement pensions, to those who
contribute over their years of service whether they are in the
Public Service of Canada or in specific forces like the RCMP. I
think Canadians are quite outraged and unhappy with this latest
government move.
My sense is if the court challenge fails—and I hope it does
not; I hope they are successful—a number of politicians in the
House of Commons will take the issue to the floor of the House
time after time until the government deals with the deficit in a
manageable, fair way.
Taking pension money from people who have not yet retired and
those who are retired is an unacceptable practice in any country
although in some banana republics this is the course of action.
Canada has a pretty good reputation around the world but it
worries me that it is becoming one of a banana republic because
of some of the actions of the Liberal government opposite that
were supported previously by the Mulroney government.
We have to address the issue. If the solicitor general is
serious about supporting Bill C-12, maybe he could talk to his
colleague, the Minister of Finance, and tell him to keep his damn
fingers out of the pension till. It is about time that happened.
I want to go on record as saying that we support Bill C-12. We
do not support the type of practices the Liberal government has
instituted with respect to taking pension funds out of the public
service pension superannuation for its own crass political
purposes.
I assure the House that in the future we will be watching this
issue very closely and taking it to the finance committee. We
will be raising it with the Minister of Finance in the future to
make sure he does not make those pensions unaffordable or
jeopardize the plan. People who have contributed to these
pension plans deserve them in their retirement.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my hon. colleague a question that has to do with the
last point he touched on, the raiding of a pension plan that is
healthy.
It seems like it is too healthy for the government and it has to
do something with it. It has certainly screwed up the Canada
pension plan. It is in a terrible mess. Now it is raiding a
pension that is in good shape. It has too much money in it.
1635
In a case such as this one, would the hon. member recommend to
the government that when a pension has an overabundance of funds
those who contributed to it should benefit from it either by a
reduction in future contributions or a direct payback? Would the
member comment on that?
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the member for Crowfoot.
The Liberals cannot stand the success of other organizations or
programs they are not directly involved with. It is a very
dangerous precedent.
The Liberal government is interfering with a pension system
established through the collective bargaining process, I might
add, to provide a pension for those who work in the public
service, the RCMP or other federal government agencies. It is a
very bad precedent and a very bad omen that the Liberals are
taking the surplus out of this pension plan.
When the actuaries established the plan through the collective
bargaining process they said that x number of dollars would
be deducted from the employees' salaries, matched by the federal
government, and invested so that they have a secure plan.
Actuaries can only predict; they cannot tell precisely what the
future will hold.
Obviously there is a surplus because of what happened in the
economy, with investments, with the longevity of plan members and
all other inputs necessary to establish the amount of money
required to pay out the pensions. The point of all of this is
that similarly it could provide for a shortfall in the long run
because it cannot predict how the economy will operate.
I believe very strongly as a person who has spent a lot of time
studying pensions in the country that we have to look at the
surplus of a pension as being the property of those who
contributed to the plan. If there is a long term surplus there
should be some consideration. Some decisions should be made in a
collective way between employees and employers as to what the
surplus should be used for, whether it should be used for a
reduction of contributions or improvement of benefits. I believe
that is a very important point to be considered.
The Liberal government has made the decision, not through
collective bargaining, to take out the surplus. It arbitrarily
did it and did not report to the population of the country until
it had already done it. By then it was too late. It is like
closing the barn door after the cows have left. That is a very
bad omen for the country.
I see the Liberal whip is very supportive of my presentation. I
hope he will take this matter to the Minister of Finance, as I am
sure he is quite supportive of what I am saying, and tell him
that these surpluses should not be taken out of the pension funds
because they rightfully belong to the employees.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Regina—Lumsden said that if there is a surplus in
a pension fund it should be distributed back to the contributors
either in the form of reduced contributions or increased
benefits.
In looking at the Canada pension plan it is just the opposite.
There have not been enough contributions. There is no money. In
that case the Liberal government decided to put the burden of
that on to the children of the country who do not have a choice
in the decision.
I am wondering what the member thinks about that.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the member misunderstood
what I said. I said that the surplus of the public service
pension plan is the property of the membership and that the
surplus should be negotiated in terms of what its use and purpose
will be.
I did not say that they should just pay out. I said that some of
the options are to reduce the contributions or to increase the
benefits of the pension holders.
1640
With respect to the Canada pension plan we have seen a different
sort of pension plan. We have basically two types of pension
plans. One is a defined contribution plan, which is a percentage
type plan whereby employees over a period of time get a
percentage of their salary as a pension. The other form is a
defined contribution plan where the employee and the employer
make contributions to a plan. It is like the purchase of an
RRSP. Whatever is earned, the principal and so on, is used to
purchase an annuity, either a single annuity or a joint spousal
annuity.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-12. My colleagues
in the Progressive Conservative caucus and I support the
legislation because it expands the scope of pension benefits for
many courageous Canadians who presently serve or who have served
as peacekeepers throughout the world.
Specifically Bill C-12 would provide peacekeepers who are
members of the RCMP with the same pension entitlement in the
event of illness, injury or death as peacekeepers in the Canadian
Armed Forces.
If Bill C-12 is adopted, provisions of the RCMP superannuation
act would correspond with the provisions of the Pension Act
regarding coverage and benefits for injuries, illnesses or deaths
incurred while on peacekeeping missions. RCMP peacekeepers would
therefore be on a level playing field with their Canadian forces
counterparts.
Our position in the global community is unique, since for the
past 40 years Canada has built a proud tradition as peacekeepers
throughout the world. There are many countries in which Canadian
men and women have put their lives on the line to help preserve
peace.
Indeed, Canada has been at the forefront of developing and
implementing modern peacekeeping operations in the world. This
is due in no small part to the active involvement of thousands of
members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Following the first 30 years of participating in peacekeeping
operations throughout the world, the nature of Canada's
peacekeepers has changed. In 1989, RCMP officers were deployed
to Namibia in the former southwest Africa as it made its
transition from a South African protectorate to an independent
democratic nation. No longer would peacekeeping remain the sole
domain of the Canadian forces. These brave men and women would
henceforth have support from their civilian colleagues in the
RCMP.
Since 1989 more than 600 members of the RCMP have participated
in United Nations missions to the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and
Rwanda.
The RCMP has successfully complemented the Canadian Armed Forces
involvement in peacekeeping. By expanding upon the earlier
success of the Canadian forces in many of the world's trouble
spots, RCMP members have met a demand for peacebuilders in
developing countries.
What does peacebuilding mean? It is more than just a buzzword.
Peacebuilding means providing developing countries with the tools
to support a stable democratic government, namely an effective
security force which is respectful of law and human rights.
RCMP members avail themselves to provide skill training in areas
such as investigation, first aid and case management. They also
provide mentoring for individual officers and monitor their
development as civilian police officers.
Finally peacebuilding includes maintaining a safe and secure
environment in which the developing police force can operate
without fear of reprisal.
That last element of peacebuilding is probably the most
dangerous for our RCMP personnel. Like their Canadian forces
colleagues in traditional peacekeeping settings, RCMP
peacebuilders often face violent opposition to their presence.
While the United Nations and this bill define peacekeeping
locations as special duty areas, the everyday reality is much
more precise. These are deeply troubled areas in which Canadians
are putting themselves at grave risk of injury, illness or death
for the cause of peace.
For these reasons the intent of the legislation to put Canadian
forces and RCMP personnel on equal footing with respect to
Pension Act benefits is a positive one which I feel should
receive priority attention by the House and Senate.
1645
I should note this imbalance between Canadian forces
peacekeeping benefits and RCMP peacekeeping benefits was neither
planned nor deliberate. It occurred under the evolution of
Canada's international military and security role during this
century.
At the beginning of the 20th century there was no such thing as
peacekeeping. Soldiers were soldiers and peace was enforced
merely by the absence of full-scale war. Such a war became a
reality with the first world war in which Canada paid dearly with
a generation of its young. In the wake of the the first world
war's carnage, the government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden
introduced the Pension Act, which provided compensation for
disability and death related to service in the Canadian forces.
The Pension Act maintained a fundamental distinction in the
eligibility for benefits between wartime or peacetime military
service. That distinction remains almost 80 years later.
Put simply, if an injury, illness or death was attributable to
or incurred during the first or second world war, a pension shall
be awarded under section 21(1). This is around the clock
coverage. Peacetime service would result in the same benefits as
wartime service only if it is established that the injury,
illness or death was sustained on duty and was attributable to
service. The difference was clear. If there existed a state of
war, 24-hour coverage was provided. Anything less and the
restrictions were much tighter.
After the second world war Canada continued to be involved in
international military operations during peacetime, such as in
Korea and the Persian Gulf. Canada also introduced and executed
the innovative notion of peacekeeping, which nonetheless placed
Canadian forces personnel in hazardous conditions not normally
associated with peacekeeping service.
In response to this evolution, the federal government introduced
the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964. This bill allowed cabinet
through order in council to designate special duty areas outside
Canada in which members of the Canadian forces would be eligible
for the same pension benefits as under section 21(1) of the
Pension Act; in other words, 24-hour coverage for Canadian forces
personnel in special duty areas whether they be military
operations such as in Korea or the Persian Gulf or peacekeeping
activities such as the Middle East or the former Yugoslavia.
Various governments have issued more than two dozen such
designations. Our Canadian forces personnel have therefore been
eligible for pension benefits in the event of illness, injury or
death incurred in these special duty areas.
The RCMP has been eligible for the same pension benefits as
those listed under section 21(2) of the Pension Act. In other
words, the illness, injury or death provision occurred through
peacetime military service was deemed to be equivalent to
illness, injury or death entitlements for members of the RCMP.
The principle was confirmed under the RCMP Act in 1948 and
confirmed in the first RCMP Superannuation Act in 1959. This was
a logical provision for domestic RCMP service. In an area such
as Canada where peace is the rule, it makes perfectly good sense
to link this type of pension eligibility to duty rather than to
service.
In special duty areas peace is the exception, not the rule.
That is why the federal government changed the pension
eligibility rules 30 years for our Canadian forces personnel.
That is why the federal government must now change the pension
eligibility rules for RCMP personnel who are now an integral part
of Canada's international commitment to peacekeeping. That is
the purpose of Bill C-12 and that is why I support the
legislation.
As has been referenced by earlier speakers, this legislation was
introduced in the previous Parliament in June 1996 as Bill C-52.
First reading occurred and then nothing happened. Nothing
happened in the fall of 1996 session and nothing in the spring of
the 1997 session. It died on the Order Paper.
It is nearly a year and a half since the bill was first
introduced and it has gone nowhere, thanks to the neglect of the
government.
This bill would affect the entitlements of hundreds of men and
women who have put their lives on the line in representing Canada
abroad. The Liberal government of the day did not have the
respect for those brave Canadians to pass this legislation.
1650
One must ask why the current government placed such a low
priority on Bill C-52. Hopefully the solicitor general, as
minister responsible for the men and women in the RCMP, has the
answer to that very important question. There is, after all, a
first time for everything. Perhaps the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, who quietly allowed the Prime Minister to assign
Canadians to Rwanda based on a newscast whim, would like to
explain the inexcusable delay in extending those benefits to the
RCMP.
What has caused the reason for delay? By dragging its heals for
a year and half did the government save huge amount of money? Why
did the government delay this rather straightforward legislation?
I hope someone from the government stands up and answers these
questions.
The RCMP personnel who are presently putting their lives on the
line in such areas as Bosnia and Haiti deserve an answer. I
would like to commend those who spoke before.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues have covered this bill very well. I have a couple of
points I would like to make which are outside the gamut of what
the members have so far touched on.
The legislation will amend the RCMP Superannuation Act to ensure
that RCMP members serving in special duty areas while on
peacekeeping missions are automatically considered to be on duty
24 hours a day and therefore get complete benefit coverage. At
present that is not the case.
As parliamentarians we should take a very close look at the
requests to send RCMP personnel into these kinds of situations,
not only because of the danger involved, but also when we take a
contingent of RCMP from Canada and send them into another country
we do not replace them at home. Then we have a shortage of
manpower.
If we have sent 200 members to Bosnia, or whatever the number
may be, it means there are 200 less RCMP members here to do the
work. The RCMP are understaffed in many areas. Some of its
special squads are understaffed. A high ranking ex-officer told
me that the RCMP does not have enough manpower to look at fraud
cases below $200,000 in value. That is a very serious situation.
In some of the western detachments a corporal is running a staff
sergeant's detachment.
When the government decides to strip the RCMP of that kind of
manpower to serve in an honourable way in other countries, it
better take a good look at what is being done at home. The old
adage is that charity begins at home. Are we going to sacrifice
the role and the service which is provided by our national police
force when we send RCMP members into various countries for
undetermined lengths of time?
The budget of the RCMP, as well, is being chipped away. Our
party is very much against that. We feel that if there is an
area that should receive additional spending, it should be in the
areas of law enforcement and justice. This will strengthen the
justice system and provide the kind of safe streets and
communities which the government likes to talk about, but is not
producing very much, certainly since I have been in this House.
There is no question that the pension benefits should be amended
to provide for the kind of coverage that is indicated in this
bill. We will be examining the clauses of the bill carefully
when it is before the committee. We would like to know if a
member is off duty, perhaps surf boarding and he injures himself,
what happens. Is he covered?
The bill is not that specific in those areas. Therefore, we will
be looking for confirmation in all of those areas to determine
whether the bill is sound as it stands or whether it requires
amendments.
1655
I would like to again sum up by emphasizing that when we send
members of the RCMP into these situations, we had better take a
careful look at the hole that we are leaving at home.
The RCMP are in a very delicate situation. Can the commissioner
of the RCMP or any senior officer stand up publicly and say “We
are risking service to the public in this area”. Some areas are
very serious. We have organized crime and the bikers whom we all
know about. We have areas that we should not be taking strength
from but adding to.
I have spoken to members in charge of the special units in my
area, in particular, in western Canada. They tell me that
without question they are short-staffed and understaffed. When we
send our troops abroad we are weakening our own forces here which
means that we are not enhancing the possibility of greater safety
in our streets and in our communities but we are doing exactly
the opposite. We ought not be doing that. We should be looking
at this.
I hope that the members who have an opportunity to examine the
witnesses appearing before the committee on this bill will put
those kinds of questions squarely before the witnesses,
including, I hope, the minister who attends and perhaps the
commissioner of the RCMP.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that if you sought the consent of the House to see the
clock as being 6.30 p.m. then possibly suspended to the call of
the Chair to allow the member or members who might be
participating in the late show, I am sure all parties will try to
facilitate that as quickly as possible. I would seek consent to
see the clock as being 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Does the hon. chief government whip
have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as being
6.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House stands in
recess to the call of the Chair.
On a point of order, the chief government whip.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is
now in the House and prepared to speak. I believe that we can
continue with the business of the House at this point.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
DEFICIT REDUCTION
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this
motion to adjourn, because I asked a question of the Minister of
Finance on October 21. What he was asked, in connection with the
$12 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, was how far
he would go before he stopped reducing his deficit on the backs of
workers and employers and the unemployed.
1700
The minister replied, speaking about contributions “we will—lower
them every year, but one has to look at all of the government's
financial statements”. In recent years, employment insurance rates have
been set in November. It is expected that, around mid-November, we will
know whether the Minister of Finance is following up on the
representations made by various stakeholders.
In this House, every possible point of view is heard. The
Conservatives want a drastic reduction in employment insurance
contributions, but without compensating seasonal workers or young people
entering the labour market, preferring to let them fend for themselves
under unacceptable conditions. The NDP does not want to lower
contributions, but to improve working conditions. As for the Bloc
Quebecois, whose position is somewhere in between, it believes that with
a $12 billion surplus by December 31, 1997, and possibly a $15 billion
surplus by March 31, 1998, the government could carry over a yearly
surplus, so as to have a cushion of $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion
for bad economic years, while splitting in two the balance in the
employment insurance fund surplus, that is by significantly lowering
contributions to put money back in the pockets of those contributing to
the program—employers and employees—while also improving
conditions for those
affected by the employment insurance reform.
The minister told us he would consider the issue. The important
thing however is to not go for a very minor lowering of contributions,
as the government did the last time, since it does not change things
significantly for employees and employers, or for job creation.
Contributions must be reduced to the point where people will receive a
sizeable amount of money that they can reinvest in the economy, thus
helping it in a meaningful way.
So far, the minister seems to have been deaf to these requests, and
I would like to know why exactly, at a time when a zero deficit—possibly
a surplus—is in sight, the federal government does not see
fit to give back to those who have contributed the most to the deficit
reduction effort, that is to say, to employees and employers, a
substantial part of this money, mainly through the employment insurance
fund. In just two years, we have gone from a $6 billion deficit to a $12
billion surplus, which will soon grow to $13 billion. This means that
more than $19 billion has been pumped into the EI fund.
Obviously, this is a wonderful money collecting tool for the
federal government, but since those who are paying into this fund are
individuals earning $39,000 or less, why is the government not
announcing right now, or at least by November 15, a significant cut in
EI premiums, combined with improved terms and conditions?
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that
EI premium rates must come down and they will. They will be
coming down over time. There is no question about that.
We have already made considerable progress in reducing EI
premium revenues. Let me remind members that EI premium rates
have declined every year since 1994, down from $3.07 in 1994 to
$2.90 this year. Weekly maximum insurable earnings, MIEs, were
rolled back to $750 and frozen rather than increased.
There is the new hires program. Many times people forget about
the new hires program. Up to 900,000 eligible employers will pay
virtually no premiums for new jobs created this year. This
program has been set up to enhance employing more people.
Together these measures represent a cumulative reduction in EI
revenues of some $4 billion from 1995 to 1997; $500 million in
1995, $1.8 billion in 1996 and $1.7 billion in 1997.
1705
The EI premium rate for 1998 will be set later this fall by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
EI premium revenues are part of the consolidated revenues of the
government. Please understand that they have been that way since
1986 at the insistence of the Auditor General of Canada. It is
certainly true that they are important to achieving our fiscal
objectives. A substantial reduction in EI premium revenues now
would require either significant increases in other taxes,
further large reductions in government programs, or an increase
in the deficit.
As much as we would want to get EI premium rates down, we cannot
do so prematurely. This is an important issue and must be
considered together with other key priorities of the government.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the House
is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.05 p.m.)