EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 135
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 8, 1998
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANNUAL REPORT OF CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF ON STATE OF
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REPORTS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND OSFI
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-55. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1005
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-441. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries and Oceans
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1010
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1120
(Division 238)
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1125
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-51. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1130
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1150
1155
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1210
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1240
1245
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-42. Second reading
|
1310
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1315
1320
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1335
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1355
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAT SINGLETON
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILY SAVINGS AND CREDIT UNION
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FORESTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TV5 INTERNATIONAL NETWORK
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALAIN BELLERIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOMMY DOUGLAS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MUSEUMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1415
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Bourassa
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WAYS AND MEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Notice of motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOBACCO ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-42. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1510
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1525
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1530
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1545
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1550
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1555
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXTRADITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-40. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1635
1640
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1655
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1725
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1810
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1825
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
1830
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Automotive Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1835
![V](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 135
![](/web/20061116190747im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 8, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
ANNUAL REPORT OF CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF ON STATE OF
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the annual report of the
Chief of the Defence Staff on the state of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
* * *
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 four
petitions.
* * *
[English]
REPORTS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND OSFI
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present the 15th and 16th reports of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
These reports deal with the aging population and information for
parliament's understanding of choices regarding the aging
population, as well as the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions regarding insurance and pensions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table comprehensive
responses to these reports.
* * *
FOREIGN PUBLISHERS ADVERTISING SERVICES ACT
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-55, an act respecting
advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present
for first reading an act respecting advertising services supplied
by foreign periodical publishers.
[Translation]
This bill concerns advertising services provided by foreign
periodical publishers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1005
[English]
CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-441, an act respecting the protection of
wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if this bill becomes law it will protect
all endangered species and their habitat in Canada, regardless of
where they live, including aquatic species and migratory birds.
It will identify species at risk and the factors that threaten
them and their habitat.
This bill will require the Minister of the Environment to
prepare a recovery plan. It will make it an offence to harm,
disturb or kill endangered species or their habitat. This bill
will give appropriate powers to designated persons to conduct
inspections and enforce the law. It will allow citizens to bring
investigations of suspected threats to an endangered specie or
its habitat.
This bill would apply to provincial as well as federal lands
unless a province decides to pass mirror legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.) moved that
the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans presented on Monday, March 23, 1998, be concurred in.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I very much want to take part in this debate this morning to
speak to the east coast fisheries report that was presented to
parliament on March 23.
It was quite an undertaking for members of the committee to go
about Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec to hold 15 public
meetings in the presence of thousands of people from the fishing
industry.
I recall very well the large numbers of people at places like
Tors Cove, Burgeo and Îles-de-la-Madeleine who came for hours to
pass on their views and their observations to the members of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
The report the committee submitted to parliament reflects the
feelings, the sentiments and the desires of people in those
provinces, and the changes that should take place in DFO policy
particularly. It was quite an undertaking, an undertaking that
has not been undertaken by any other standing committee of
parliament to my recollection.
The report received quite a bit of attention, as everyone knows.
But the recommendations of the report were those desires, wishes
and recommendations that came from the public hearings that were
held in the various provinces we visited. We held 15 meetings
and listened to thousands of people involved in the fishing
industry. Fishermen, fish plant workers, trawlermen, retired
trawlermen and people who had held top management positions with
fish processing companies came before the committee to give their
views.
One of the contentious issues was the state of our fish stocks,
particularly our cod stocks, the effect of foreign overfishing
and what foreign overfishing has done to the fish stocks over
the years. Everyone recognizes that foreign overfishing has
declined, but it has mainly declined because it is not
financially viable for foreign countries to come so far from home
to catch diminished amounts of cod and diminished amounts of
flounder. The main reason they are not coming over to catch the
fish is because it is not financially viable to do so.
1010
I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head. He is
probably shaking his head in disbelief. He is shaking his head
in disbelief or he is shaking his head at the truth. I am not
quite sure.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Get your facts straight.
Mr. Bill Matthews: The hon. member would not know a fact
about the fishery if he fell on it.
There is still foreign fishing going on and the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans a number of times, in appearing before the
standing committee, has said that if there are Canadian interests
which still want fish to be caught by foreigners he will make
that fish available to them.
I want to go on record this morning as saying that I know of at
least two Canadian enterprises which at present have submissions
before DFO looking for fish that is now being caught by
foreigners.
Since I am on the topic of foreign fishing I cannot bypass the
opportunity to comment for a few moments on the recent NAFO
meetings in Lisbon, Portugal.
In those Lisbon, Portugal meetings, for the first time since
1949, for the first time since Newfoundland joined Confederation,
the co-ordinates of the fishing zones on the nose and the tail of
the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap have been altered.
It is the first time since 1949 that we see a change in area 3M
which we always refer to as the nose of the Grand Banks. There
has been a change which will allow foreigners to catch shrimp on
the nose of the Grand Banks for the first time since 1949.
For members who do not know, the nose and tail of the Grand
Banks are considered nursery areas. It is where juvenile fish
grow. It has great feeding potential. Fish grow very well
there. We try to protect the nose and the tail of the banks for
that reason.
What has Canada done? Just a few short weeks ago in Lisbon it
agreed to alter fishing zone 3M to allow foreigners to catch
shrimp in the nursery area. It is the first time. It is now an
area known as 3MA.
An hon. member: Wrong again.
Mr. Bill Matthews: I say to the hon. member that I am not
wrong again and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has
indicated that the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
have supported this move. That is still debatable.
It is very widely debated in Newfoundland whether or not the
government of Newfoundland agreed.
Mr. Wayne Easter: We are dealing with facts, not fiction.
Mr. Bill Matthews: We are dealing with fish, I say to the
parliamentary secretary; something which he did not know a lot
about a year ago. He knew a lot about spuds, but he did not know
a lot about fish. He still knows more about potatoes than he
knows about fish.
This is a very disturbing situation for a number of reasons.
The foreigners will not be content in five, six or ten years just
to catch shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks because then they
will claim historic attachment and they will want to catch cod
and flounder and so on.
If we were to listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
and top management at DFO, they would lead us to believe that
Spain and Portugal are not overfishing, that they are not
catching cod on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap of the
Grand Banks.
I want to inform the House that right now, as I speak, Portugal
and Spain have huge amounts of headed flatfish, American plaice,
yellowtail flounder and gray sole for sale in frozen form in
their warehouses. Where did they get this frozen flatfish? There
is only one place they could have gotten it: from fishing on the
Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador.
They got the flatfish as a bycatch for cod. How much cod did
they take to have these huge amounts of flatfish, American
plaice, yellowtail flounder and gray sole for sale? Yet the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his top management people
will try to convince Atlantic Canadians particularly that they
have Spain and Portugal under control. What malarkey.
It is just as bad out there today as it was 10 years ago.
The Government of Canada has made it worse by now allowing the
same people to catch shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks.
1015
The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. He shakes his head
a lot these days. He shakes his head about the problems with the
fishery and he shakes his head about some of the problems his own
colleagues are experiencing. He shakes, shakes and shakes his
head.
Mr. Lynn Myers: About misinformation.
Mr. Bill Matthews: The hon. member keeps shouting
“misinformation”. The government is good at trying to turn the
truth into misinformation. The hon. member cannot deny the
obvious. The hon. member would not know, but since the NAFO
meetings in Lisbon there has been a huge outcry about the shrimp
situation on the nose of the Grand Banks. A lot of people have
their you know what in the wringer over this situation. It is a
very serious situation in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic
Canada. We suffer most when foreigners fish on the Grand Banks
of Newfoundland and Labrador; not central Canada or western
Canada but Atlantic Canada.
Another recommendation in our report dealt with the early
retirement post-TAGS program. The committee in its wisdom, after
listening to those thousands and thousands of people affected,
recommended that if the government came forward with an early
retirement program it should develop a formula consisting of age
plus attachment to the industry.
We recommended that. Everyone that came to our meetings
recommended that. However, once again the minister of HRDC in
particular did not accept the recommendation. I am sad to say
that because thousands of people with 30, 32, 34 and 35 years of
attachment to the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada have fallen
through the cracks of the early retirement program.
I do not want to see anyone with anything taken away. We can
look at someone 55 years of age with 10 years of attachment to
the industry who will receive early retirement benefits. Then we
can look at a person 54 years of age with 35 years of attachment
to the industry who will not receive any early retirement
benefits. There is an obvious unfairness and injustice.
Why the government did not accept that recommendation I will
never understand. I have consistently said that there was not a
need for the government to allocate any more than the $730
million it allocated to the program. There could have been a
redirection inside the fund to take care of this problem.
I suggested very strongly to the minister of HRDC and the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in written form and verbally
that they should have redirected the $100 million allocated to
ACOA for community regional development. They could have
redirected some of that money to early retirement and taken care
of those people with 30 to 35 years of attachment to the
industry.
There is a very serious situation unfolding in Atlantic Canada
today. I know about the riding of Burin—St. Georges which I
represent. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always in large
numbers gone away to look for work. They have always gone to
Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta. It has been part of our
life. However, in the rural communities of Burin—St. Georges
and rural communities of other ridings that make up our province
the out-migration is frightening. It is very difficult in most
of our communities to find anyone under 45 years of age. Most of
them are 50 years of age plus. Most of them are retired people
or the few who hold government jobs.
That is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador and in a
lot of communities in Atlantic Canada today. It is as a direct
result of what has happened to our fishing industry, what has
happened to our fish resource, our fish stocks.
Our report recommended a change in DFO policy and attitude so
that as our stocks regenerate and rebuild there would at least be
a future for Atlantic Canadians in the fishing industry. All we
got in response from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was
that he cast the report aside. He tried to downplay the report.
He did not take the recommendations of the committee very
seriously.
1020
I am very disappointed by that because as all members of the
House know the majority of members of the standing committee like
all other committees are government members. There were nine of
them. Nine of them participated in the writing of the report.
Nine of them supported the recommendations of the report. Nine
of sixteen government members wrote and supported the
recommendations.
What did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do? He just threw
it aside and said “hogwash, bunk”. The biggest problem in the
fishing industry on the east and west coasts today is that the
people in the industry do not have confidence in the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans because of that kind of attitude. At least
the minister could have taken the report and very seriously
reviewed and considered it. He could have at least responded to
it in a meaningful way, which he refused to do.
The report from the committee generated a lot of attention in
Atlantic Canada. There were 15 public meetings. Thousands of
people appeared before the committee. They expected something to
follow from the report and from the recommendations. All they
got was more arrogance and more nose-thumbing from the Minister
of Fisheries and Ocean, which is not acceptable.
We have some very serious problems in Atlantic Canada with the
unemployed and the out-migration. There are some positive signs
in some of our fishing zones, particularly in our southern zones,
that our fish stocks are regenerating. In the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador that I represent this year we had a
commercial cod fishery with a total allowable catch which
increased from 20,000 metric tons to 30,000 metric tons.
Fishermen I grew up with and worked with in the fishing industry
when I was working my way through university tell me that there
is more fish in the southern zones today than they have seen for
the last 15 year. They have no reason to mislead me. I am one
of them. I grew up with them. I am concerned about them. They
tell me there are good signs of fish in the southern zones.
With the northeast coast northern cod stocks the signs are not
so great, but within the last few weeks I was pleased to hear
scientists say that there is at least some small sign of some
regeneration in the northern cod stocks.
Our committee did not only hear about cod. We heard about red
fish, turbot, lobster and scallops. You name it, we heard about
it. The shellfish industry particularly is still a very solid
industry. There are some very good earnings. Fishermen are
doing very well. There is still a very good fishing industry in
Atlantic Canada in other species.
I want to allude to the NAFO meetings and the observer coverage
on foreign vessels.
Mr. Wayne Easter: It is 100%.
Mr. Bill Matthews: The parliamentary secretary is as
proud as the minister to talk about the 100% observer coverage.
Observers come from the European Community. Observers are hired
by the European Community. They are not Canadian observers. They
are Spanish and Portuguese. In fact they are mostly British
observers who are paid by the owners of the vessels they observe
on. So what?
We have 100% observers but the price we have to pay is the
giving away of shrimp on the nose of the Grand Banks to have
observer coverage for another two years when it will be reviewed
again. We may not have 100% observer coverage after two years.
The foreigners may reject it in two years. That is what I am
told. I am not saying it is correct. I am told that in two
years it is up for review. The parliamentary secretary will have
an occasion to respond to my remarks. If I am wrong he can set
the record straight.
Mr. Wayne Easter: It will take me all day.
Mr. Bill Matthews: No, it will not. It will not take the
parliamentary secretary very long to deal with it because he
knows what I am saying is correct. He knows full well.
How could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be so delighted
with 100% observer coverage on foreign vessels by foreigners who
are paid by foreigners? We do not get to see the observer
reports.
They can tell us what they like.
1025
Mr. Wayne Easter: They were offered to you in camera.
Mr. Bill Matthews: I refuse to accept the observer
reports in camera. If I saw them the first thing I would do is
get in trouble because once I read them I would tell people what
were in them. I would rather not see them, because if I see the
observer reports I want to talk about them. I do not want to see
them for my information. I want to tell Atlantic Canadians and
all other Canadians what is in them.
They are the people who deserve to know. Satisfying my
curiosity is not good enough. I represent 158 communities in
Newfoundland and Labrador. These people want to know what is in
the observer reports. What is the point of my looking at the
reports in camera and not being able to tell them about it
without getting myself in trouble?
Why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not give us the
reports so that we could look at them, say what we wanted about
them and make public what is in them, is a matter of real debate.
It is the government's way of covering it up. It wants to cover
it up and pretend that it is rosy. The Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans beats his chest about 100% observer coverage. So what? It
is like having Jesse James looking after the bank. It is like
paying Jesse James to be security at a bank. Jesse would argue
that he did not steal any money. The foreigners tell us that
they did not violate any of our NAFO regulations and we believe
them.
There is a situation nine miles off the coast of Newfoundland
and Labrador where the French are still catching salmon. The
commercial salmon fishery of St. Pierre and Miquelon has
increased while our fishermen have been bought out. The French
bought our fishing nets and set them nine miles offshore. The
salmon fishing has increased. The French tell the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans that they are not catching very many salmon,
and the minister believes them. Yet the French do not have one
salmon river that contributes to the resource. All they do is
take out.
These are the kinds of situations that we get from the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, from the parliamentary secretary and
from others over there who are big wigs in government. They try
to bamboozle the public. They try to give a false impression but
the people are seeing through it.
I finish by saying that I was very pleased to be a part of the
east coast report, to have participated in the committee, to
listen to Atlantic Canadians, and to express their desires and
wishes to the government. However, I am sorry to say the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not take the report very
seriously.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too was very
pleased to be part of the Standing Committee of Fisheries and
Oceans. Its 15 meetings in Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland were
excellent. We had good discussions and listened loud and clear
to what fishermen had to say.
I will admit that we had very good co-operation by all members
of the committee in a non-partisan sense and came up with an
excellent report. Not all is abed as the member for Burin—St.
George's paints it in terms of the minister's response. There was
an excellent response to a number of points.
Although the member wants to raise a lot of false flags in the
foreign fishing issue, the minister clarified the concerns on
foreign fishing. I would like to make some points relative to
what the member said about foreign fishing to try to correct the
record.
The catches from quotas allocated to foreign fleets in Canadian
waters have dropped to less than 2,000 tonnes in recent years.
They are down from an average of 350,000 tonnes in the late 1970s
and 1980s. The member is shaking his head; he knows that. We
still have foreign fishing within our 200 mile zone. A question
needs to be asked. Why?
1030
The fact is that this foreign fishing is under bilateral
fisheries agreements with those countries that abide by our
conservation objectives inside and outside 200 miles. That is an
important point. Inside and outside 200 miles.
These foreign allocations do not deprive Canadian fishermen who
still leave large portions of their quotas in the water every
year. Some of the foreign vessels in two special Atlantic
fisheries are chartered by Canadian quota holders. These foreign
charters provide jobs for Canadian plant workers and new markets
for Canadian companies. It is important to see that Canadians
are working through the allocation of these quotas to foreign
fishers.
In addition, foreign vessels fishing in Canadian waters are
carefully monitored. The member talked a bit about this point.
In Canadian waters they must be licensed and they must carry
Canadian observers at their expense.
An hon. member: What about the reports?
Mr. Wayne Easter: As I indicated earlier, the observer
reports were offered to the committee in camera. There is
confidential commercial information in those observer reports.
The worry was that if they were not offered in camera in a
confidential way, as the member for Burin—St. George's said, he
would make that information public.
The opposition parties really should have looked at the reports.
Then they could have confirmed publicly without giving the
details that what the minister is saying is correct. The fact is
they did not want to admit that the minister is correct on this
particular issue in terms of what those observer reports state.
Those are the facts.
Despite the fact that these charters benefit Canadians, some
have argued that these fish should be allocated to Canadians.
That would be great, but Canadians do have the first right of
refusal for all fish in Canadian waters. Before any foreign
allocations are made, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
undertakes extensive consultations with industry and the
provinces.
I believe that the member for Burin—St. George's indicated that
he knew of two people who are interested. I would hope he would
bring that information forward and negotiations could go on.
Maybe they could get their allocation.
Finally, we need to remember that the 200 mile nautical zone is
a matter of international consensus. It was established during
the negotiations of the United Nations convention on the law of
the sea in the 1970s of which we were one of the key players.
Let me move on to a couple of other points that I want to
clarify and question the hon. member on. The member talked about
the—
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If the parliamentary secretary wants to debate this, then
why does the government not allow this debate to continue instead
of using up all the time for questions and comments?
The Deputy Speaker: With great respect, I do not think
that is a point of order, but I am indicating to the hon.
parliamentary secretary that this is questions and comments and
there are other members who want to make comments and ask
questions. The hon. member has used up half the time already. I
would ask him to bring his comments to a close within the next 15
seconds, please.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, the member raised points
in terms of the NAFO meeting in Lisbon and the 100% observer
coverage. I just want to point out to him that there are other
checks and balances in terms of observers that come from foreign
countries on those boats. There is spot monitoring by our own
vessels and there is dockside—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East
may wish to respond. If not, I will go to another member who
wishes to comment.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, it is Burin—St.
George's. I am sure if the hon. member for St. John's East were
here, being a Newfoundlander he would want to respond, but I will
take the opportunity to answer the parliamentary secretary.
When I was talking about the changes to the co-ordinates for the
first time since 1949 in moving a line in area 3M to be now
called 3MA to allow foreigners to catch shrimp on the nose of the
Grand Banks, for some reason in his speech the parliamentary
secretary conveniently forgot to allude to that.
1035
This is a very serious situation. We are now allowing
foreigners to catch shrimp in the nursery area of the Grand Banks
for the first time since 1949. As I said before, they have
fished shrimp for five or six years. Then we go off to another
NAFO meeting and the foreigners will say “Now we have been into
that new 3MA zone for five years, we have historical fishing
rights there so we want cod and flounder there”. I say to the
parliamentary secretary that is what is going to happen. And the
government will try to justify that by saying “But yes, we have
100% observer coverage. On every vessel we will have an
observer, a foreign observer on a foreign vessel”.
There is no protection. All it does is make the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans feel good. He pounds his chest about 100%
observer coverage, but they are foreign observers on foreign
boats.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Burin—St. George's
a question. I certainly agree with the comments he has made
today.
The parliamentary secretary thinks Canadians are going to
believe, and I will quote him, “foreign fishers only get what
Canadians don't want”. This is an unbelievable statement. He
should go back to growing spuds.
The member for Burin—St. George's worked very hard on this
report and all it got was the chairman of the fisheries committee
fired. There are some great recommendations in that report.
They are good for fisheries in Canada.
We also know there is a report on the west coast fisheries
coming out. The member for Burin—St. George's has forgotten more
about fisheries than the minister of fisheries or his
parliamentary secretary will ever know. What advice could he give
us on the west coast to make sure the west coast does not end up
with the same disaster from this government that there is on the
east coast?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, the west coast has
problems that are different and unique.
The problems on the west coast are the direct result of the
policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. What it has
done on the west coast, more so than it has done on the east
coast, is it goes under the guise of consultations. It goes
about having these consultative hearings but it does not listen
to a word that is said. Consequently the minister has had a great
charade out there of consultations, but he has not listened to
the people.
Those in top management in DFO continue in spite of those
consultations in their old ways. Consequently we see the west
coast fishery coming apart the same as has happened on the east
coast. The same management personnel that have made decisions
for the last 10 or 15 years are still there making the same
decisions.
If the government is going to go about it right, make some
changes in top management and when consulting with the people,
listen to the people. Take their message seriously and make some
changes.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to join this debate. I move:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1120
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Drouin
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Mahoney
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 118
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Mark
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solomon
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 94
|
PAIRED
Members
Alcock
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bevilacqua
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Discepola
| Gallaway
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Lalonde
|
Leung
| Loubier
| Marchand
| Mifflin
|
Normand
| Richardson
| Steckle
| St - Hilaire
|
Szabo
| Valeri
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1125
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from October 7, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-51,
introduced by the Minister of Justice.
This bill is entitled: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act. It cleans out a lot of our penal law
system.
This is an omnibus bill. Traditionally, these omnibus
bills always require particular attention from parliamentarians,
since they involve several laws.
A careful examination of the measures proposed in Bill C-51 would
show how pertinent the minister's proposals are. I must take
this opportunity to point out how important the work of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be.
On numerous occasions in this House we have criticized the
quality of the work done by the parliamentary committees,
because of the government's systematic obstruction . It rarely
acts on the recommendations made to it. It is therefore vital
for the opposition parties to join together to demand
transparency from the government in committee proceedings.
As I have done for a number of other bills, I offer the minister
my full co-operation in improving this bill, if possible.
Since this is an omnibus bill, I am going to address a number of
extremely important matters, naturally those which involve the
concerns of Quebeckers most directly.
The first part I am going to address deals with casinos on
cruise ships. Since other Bloc Quebecois MPs have already
spoken on this, I shall be brief.
Bill C-51 deals with certain amendments relating to casinos on
cruise ships. I will give a brief historical review.
Without the St. Lawrence River, Quebec and Canada—the entire
North American continent in fact—would have developed in a very
different way. Very early on in our history, it was the route
taken by the foreign explorers who discovered the marvellous
part of this continent now known as Quebec.
Although its role
has changed over the years, this great navigable waterway has
always influenced the development of our communities,
culturally, economically and touristically. Until know,
however, our legislation has had a direct impact on the river's
tourism potential, by preventing cruise ships from operating
casinos.
Cruise ships had to shut down their casinos when they hit the
waters off Anticosti Island, or in other words two days before
reaching Quebec City.
The direct result was that a number of carriers avoided
stopovers at Quebec City and those that did put in did so for a
much shorter period of time, in the interests of keeping their
passengers happy.
1130
Since the Bloc Quebecois was elected in 1993, the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans has been trying to
get the House and the government to see the disastrous impact of
existing legislation on cruise ships with casinos.
If these ships are allowed to operate their casinos in the St.
Lawrence River, tourism in the Quebec City area will pick up, as
passengers will be able to disembark and spend more time in the
area, returning to the ship at night to enjoy the casino. This
will be legal. When passengers disembark, they will provide the
Quebec City area with a significant economic boost.
For this, we owe a big thank you to the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, and to all
members from the Quebec City area, who worked together to get
the government to see the advantage of this amendment, and
especially how important it was to Quebec to amend the Criminal
Code so that cruise ships could continue on their way, but be
able to stop over in Quebec City, so that neither the region nor
vacationers would suffer.
The other important thing I wanted to mention about Bill C-51 is
the accelerated parole review provision. I would like to speak
to this briefly.
In 1997, the media brought us the Lagana affair. It will be
recalled that this involved a lawyer, Joseph Lagana, sentenced
in 1995 to 13 years in prison for his involvement in a drug
importing case and for laundering almost $47.4 million.
The worse part of this story is that Mr. Lagana was released
after serving only one sixth of his sentence, that is 26 months
instead of the 13 years of imprisonment he had been sentenced to
by the judge.
The accelerated parole review procedure provided in the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act benefited this major
drug trafficker, who was released after serving only one sixth
of his sentence because his crime was considered a non-violent
offence under the law and he had not served time before.
On this subject, let me digress to say a word about the
application criteria of this accelerated review procedure. In
1987, the chief justice of the supreme court made a decision in
the Smith affair, saying:
Because they are the direct cause of the hardship experienced by
their victims and their families, we must ensure these importers
of narcotics bear their share of culpability for the countless
serious crimes of all sorts committed by drug addicts to support
their addiction.
It read further:
With due respect, I believe that, when convicted, these
individuals, with very few exceptions, should be sentenced and
actually serve long term sentences.
This shows that the supreme court considers drug trafficking to
be a scourge of serious magnitude that must be eradicated.
In our view, since money laundering sustains this scourge,
anyone who is found guilty should indeed, in the words of the
supreme court justice, serve long term sentences.
But the Liberal government obviously does not agree, since it is
allowing criminals like Joseph Lagana to take advantage of
accelerated parole reviews. The Lagana affair prompted the Bloc
Quebecois, through the member for Charlesbourg, to introduce a
private member's bill to have this kind of review denied to
criminals found guilty of money laundering, among other
offences.
While Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction, the new
provisions will not apply to Mr. Lagana and others like him,
because bankers and lawyers who are convicted for money
laundering but not for an organized crime offence will still get
away with serving one sixth of their sentence.
This is totally unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois. We will not
tolerate other Lagana cases.
Therefore, we are informing the House that, on Bill C-51, the
Bloc Quebecois will be proposing amendments to offset the
Liberal government's lack of courage on this issue.
1135
The fact that the government is making a minor correction to a
situation does not release it from all its obligations.
I also want to discuss the powers of the attorney general of
Canada.
Bill C-51 affects the respective powers of the federal and
provincial attorneys general regarding criminal proceedings.
Indeed, while section 2 of the Criminal Code gives provincial
attorneys general exclusive authority to institute criminal
proceedings, Bill C-51 introduces an exception in the case of
proceedings that relate to the trafficking of uncut rough
diamonds.
In fact, the bill creates a concurrent power for this type of
offence, while pointing out that the new provisions do not
affect the powers of the provinces in this area.
In spite of that clarification, we feel the amendment proposed
in clause 16 of the bill opens the door to new federal
intrusions in the administration of criminal justice which, as
we know, is an area under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The
Department of Justice justifies this undermining of the
provinces' authority by saying that the mining of diamonds takes
place almost exclusively in the Northwest Territories. Under
section 2 of the Criminal Code, the attorney general of Canada
has, exceptionally, the authority to institute proceedings in
the two Canadian territories.
Since the illegal trafficking of uncut rough diamonds can take
place across provincial borders, the department feels it would
be wise to allow the federal attorney general, who institutes
criminal proceedings in the Canadian territories, to be able to
bring these proceedings to conclusion in the provinces, if
necessary.
However, we feel this is not enough of a justification. The
diamond traffic , like many other offences listed in the
Criminal Code, can be dealt with through co-operation between the
federal and provincial attorneys general, so that criminal
proceedings can be brought to a fruitful conclusion. Such
co-operation currently exists, and nothing indicates that it
would not exist in the specific case of the trafficking of uncut
rough diamonds. I am asking the government to respect the
jurisdictions established in the Canadian constitution—its own
constitution—and not to get involved in areas under provincial
jurisdiction.
The other very important characteristic of this bill is that it
deals with section 227 of the Criminal Code, which states that
“no person commits culpable homicide—unless the death occurs
within one year and one day from the time of the occurrence of
the last event”. The bill would repeal this provision linked to
British legislation from the Middle Ages. That was a long time
ago.
The centuries old one year and one day rule remained part of our
criminal legislation without its relevancy ever being seriously
challenged. Over the years, two main reasons were offered to
justify this rule.
First, it was argued that it would be unacceptable for a person
to be indefinitely subject to prosecution for murder.
Second, in cases where the victim lives a long time after an
injury, a causal connection between the act in question and the
subsequent death may be difficult to establish.
In spite of these justifications, the rule set out in section
227 of the Criminal Code continues to be strongly criticized.
The first criticism is that the rule flies in the face of the
principle that homicide procedures are not subject to any
statute of limitation in Canada. Furthermore, the
“one-year-and-one-day” rule is viewed as an arbitrary rule that
brings our justice system into disrepute.
While a causal connection may be obvious, death may occur
immediately following the period of prescription provided for in
section 227 of the Criminal Code, which means that the act in
question could no longer qualify as culpable homicide.
Finally, we must bear in mind that, with technological progress,
crime victims may survive for longer periods.
Technological breakthroughs in medicine help artificially
prolong the lives of patients who otherwise would have died much
sooner.
By proposing that section 227 of the Criminal Code be
repealed, Bill C-51 addresses these many criticisms.
1140
By rescinding the year and a day rule, parliament would, among
other things, be acting on the recommendation of the
federal-provincial task force on homicide, which, in 1991, wanted
to have sections 224 and 227 of the Criminal Code replaced.
This recommendation would have led to the formulation of a
causality rule, which is in keeping with the jurisprudence.
To this end, it is also important to point out that the repeal
of section 227 would clear the way for the rules formulated by
the supreme court in the Smithers case on the determination of a
causal link between a death and an illegal act.
Under this jurisprudence, the only requirement of the illegal
act is that it at least contributed to the death of the victim
and that its contribution was not insignificant.
Even if the act itself did not cause the death in question, it
may nevertheless constitute a legal cause once it contributed in
any way whatsoever.
In the light of the foregoing, the repeal of section 227 of the
Criminal Code appears justified. Nevertheless, the
deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights should enable us to dispel all ambiguity on this matter
and I hope to question doctors and lawyers about it so that we
end up with the best section possible in the Criminal Code
dealing with this.
In introducing Bill C-51, the government could have been braver
and proposed measures more vigorously attacking the real
problems of the Canadian justice system. As we mentioned
earlier, the amendments to the accelerated parole review in the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act are inadequate.
The battle against money laundering does not seem to be a
priority for this government, which takes a piecemeal approach
to things. The solutions it is proposing do not go nearly far
enough.
There is no doubt about this government's apathy, because it
could, right now, take effective action against money
laundering. The Bloc Quebecois has been raising this whole
issue for a long time now.
Listeners will probably recall that
we even made it part of our platform in the last election
campaign, and that we were not short of suggestions for what
this government should do about this terrible problem in Canada.
As I mentioned earlier, the member for Charlesbourg introduced
a private member's bill to deal with the issue. Since its
purpose is to do something about the problem of money
laundering, I trust that it will have the support of the
government.
One thing the government could easily and rapidly do, even in
Bill C-51 before us, is to eliminate $1,000 bank notes, which is
a top priority for the Bloc Quebecois. Canada is one of the
only countries to issue such a high denomination. Police forces
tell us that this makes it easier for criminals to launder their
ill-gotten gains.
The Bloc Quebecois is also suggesting that financial
institutions should in future be required to inform the police
of any dubious transaction involving $10,000 or more. This
requirement would also apply to casinos and travel agencies.
Despite what it is saying, the Liberal government's response to
money laundering has been far from effective. Strict measures
are long in coming.
Because of that inertia, we must constantly raise the issue and
hound the government, as we did in the case of the motorcycle
gangs, for instance. The government finally decided to act
following the enormous pressure exerted by the Bloc Quebecois
regarding that issue. I do hope that, following our private
members' bills and our representations, the government will
finally take action regarding money laundering, if not with Bill
C-51, then in a subsequent piece of legislation.
Since time is running out, I will conclude by saying that the
Bloc Quebecois is pleased that operating casinos on cruise ships
on the St. Lawrence River will now be permitted. As I said
earlier, thanks to the hard work of several MPs from the Quebec
City area, the government finally realized that the situation
could no longer persist.
The tourist industry in the Quebec City area will now be in a
position to thrive even more.
The Bloc Quebecois is also pleased to have made the government
realize that the accelerated review process was flawed.
1145
Again, the Bloc Quebecois said repeatedly that it was
unacceptable to see a notorious drug trafficker take advantage
of that procedure. Unfortunately, the government did not realize
the magnitude of the problem, since its proposed amendments do
not go far enough.
When will the government understand that it is useless to try to
fight gangs if nothing is done about money laundering?
In the area of crime, as in any other one, money is everything.
However, the government does not seem to have understood that
yet, or at least it is slow to do so.
It is slow to amend the legislation, so that Canada can finally
lose its unenviable title of money laundering haven.
The Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-51, to the extent that the
government is aware that the legislation has a number of flaws
on which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will
have to work.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am as always pleased to rise and take part in the
debate, in particular a debate as important as this involving
substantial changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Bill C-51, as has been previously mentioned, is an omnibus bill
to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The Minister of Justice and the solicitor general both tend to
avoid substantive changes to our statutes. I was surprised to
see that the government had tendered this bill to change the
legislation in June.
Optimistically I would like to believe that this is finally a
sign that this government takes issues of law and order
seriously, but for reasons that I will outline later I remain
sceptical.
This omnibus bill is nevertheless positive legislation. I want
to state that at the outset. The federal government, the
provinces and the territories share jurisdiction over a number of
these issues. The bill itself takes into consideration many of
the consultations which have taken place between these levels of
government.
As mentioned by previous speakers, it would amend the Criminal
Code with regard to homicide, child prostitution, conditional
sentencing and parole. These are serious issues of which all
Canadians should take note. It was also amend the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act, dealing specifically with sentencing
and criminal liability for on duty law enforcement officers.
Finally, the bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act to exclude those convicted of organized crime
offences from the eligibility for accelerated parole review.
This comes at a time when organized crime units across the
country sadly are being cut or scaled down by the current
government. In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough the
local Stellarton detachment has undergone this downsizing. Able
and very dedicated officers like Constable Pat Martin sadly have
been taken away from the crime and specifically the drug units of
this detachment.
I would like to outline some of the significant provisions of
this bill. The Criminal Code currently disallows the prosecution
of an individual for murder, manslaughter and other capital
offences after more than a year and a day have passed from the
death of the victim, regardless of how clearly it may be proven
that the victim's death was caused by the accused. This was
certainly a situation sadly in need of change. This bill would
remove that provision in light of advances in forensic science
and the medical profession.
It is ultimately the government with the support of the NDP and
the Bloc, however, that decided to neuter the DNA Identification
Act which would further strengthen and stress the importance of
this particular amendment.
Other amendments to the Criminal Code included in this bill
would simplify the prosecution of an individual if he or she
attempts to procure the sexual services of a prostitute that they
know is under the age of 18 years. It would also allow police
officers to use electronic surveillance and technology in this
area to investigate prostitution related offences.
I am very pleased to note the government's amendment to the
conditional sentencing provisions in Bill C-51. If an offender
breaches his or her conditional sentence this bill now allows the
justice system to permit the issuance of an arrest warrant until
a court hearing is held on the breach itself. Again, I view this
as a positive amendment.
1150
The breach hearing limit of 30 days would also be changed to
permit the court to deal with the offenders who cannot be found
or brought to court within that time period.
It is, however, very unfortunate that the government did not
choose to further restrict conditional sentencing provisions
period so that no offender convicted of a crime of violence is
granted a conditional sentence. This is a situation I would
strongly urge the government to reconsider. It should be
remedied and, at the very least, there should be efforts made to
ensure that conditional sentences are not applied to certain
designated offences such as sexual assault and capital offences
and those involving high end violence.
The amendments themselves would ensure that offenders with ties
to organized crime or gangs would no longer receive accelerated
parole review. I view this as positive change. While this is an
extremely positive step, I would like to know why the government
has lectured members for months that it would be inappropriate to
propose amendments while statutory review of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act was underway at the justice committee.
Once again we have seen a bit of a contradiction in what the
government says and what the government does.
If the Liberal government is willing to amend the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act in this way before the statutory
review is complete then surely it should be willing to support
positive and constructive amendments to the CCRA review from
private members in this House on both government and opposition
side because I know there are government members who have brought
forward very intelligent and insightful private members' bills as
they reflect on the criminal justice system.
I also question the government's true commitment to fighting
organized crime given that the solicitor general and the Liberal
government itself could be doing much more in this area. Recent
revelations from the auditor general seem to indicate that
contrary to what the solicitor general announced publicly about
this government's commitment to organized crime, the reality is
that millions of dollars have been taken out of the RCMP budget.
We also know that in the last year to year and a half we have
seen the devolution of the ports police in areas like Halifax and
Vancouver. I assure this House that one very prevalent factor
waiting in the wings is the decision to make Halifax a
post-Panamax port. With this decision there will be
significantly increased traffic on that port. Instead of a
specialized police force, the ports police aimed at combating
organized crime and the importation of drugs, weapons and other
contraband materials, now we have that duty being passed on along
with other duties the current Halifax metro police and RCMP are
charged with.
It is not a partisan comment on my part. That is simply the
conclusion that has been reached in examining these facts. I do
not reach this conclusion alone. Each year the U.S. State
Department prepares a report called “International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report”. In its most recent report, the State
Department singled out Canada as an easy target for drug related
and other types of money laundering. The same report also listed
Canada in the same category as Columbia, Brazil and the Cayman
Islands as an attractive location to hide illegal cash. Finally,
the same report was very critical of Canada's lack of legislation
to control cross-border money flow.
The Canadian Police Association, as it is a very insightful
group, has also echoed similar concerns. London police Chief
Julian Fantino, head of the organized crime committee in the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, said that money
laundering is an easy feat in Canada. According to some reports,
the RCMP has estimated the value of laundering money in Canada
between $3 billion and $10 billion. The solicitor general
recognizes this problem, should be aware of it and should act on
it.
During the government's first ever annual statement on organized
crime, the solicitor general promised new anti-organized crime
legislation that would finally require significant steps toward
combating this situation. It would also require that financial
institutions report suspicious transactions and cross-border
currency movements.
As a matter of interest, the solicitor general's predecessor and
the current Deputy Prime Minister made a similar commitment in
September 1996 following the conference on organized crime.
Sadly, Canadians continue to wait and organized crime continues
to penetrate this country.
1155
In April of this year the present solicitor general repeated
that promise again and had a conference that was very well
publicized. There was a great deal of ballyhoo about the
solicitor general's initiatives and spoke quite openly about his
intentions for combating organized crime.
He made the same promise to the police in the past year in
August and in the span of nearly two years this government has
made the same promise on four separate occasions but have
delivered nothing.
I would concede that the solicitor general has a laudable
commitment to consultation as well as airline conversations but
he also should know that the law enforcement community has had
enough and does not want any more shallow promises. The
government is incessantly holding conferences under the guise of
consultation and yet there do not seem to be any meaningful
consequences that come about as a result of these consultations.
The solicitor general's dismal response to the problem of
organized crime and this government's manipulation of
consultation has become a tool of delay and frustrated police to
the point where the executive director of the Canadian Police
Association recently stated to the media: “Quite frankly, we
don't care what this government has to say anymore”. That is a
very telling comment from the Canadian Police Association when
saying this in response to the government's commitment to
organized crime.
Are we to believe the brave talk of the solicitor general? Given
his credibility problems of late, that does stretch it quite a
bit. The solicitor general since June 1997 has said we would do
away with any problem recognizing his statements that fighting
organized crime is one of his strategic priorities.
We are patiently waiting, as are the Canadian people, the
Canadian Police Association and indeed all police associations
across the country. Police and the public are forced to judge
the solicitor general's commitment to strategic priorities by
actions and results. Words alone, no matter how tough they
sound, just do not cut it when it comes to fighting organized
crime.
There are also significant amendments with respect to
telemarketing fraud. Proceeds gained from deceptive
telemarketing practices that would be subject to seizure and
forfeiture under Bill C-51 are a positive step. This bill would
also make it illegal to generate currency by copying bank notes
by computer assisted or electronic means. Certainly forgery has
become a problem in this country as it has around the world.
I commend the government for this positive amendment although it
is unfortunate that we have yet to see other measures aimed
specifically at organized crime in this country.
Given the rising market value of forged currency, this amendment
would establish theft and smuggling of other valuable commodities
such as diamonds, gemstones or any rock or ore. It is a positive
focus of this omnibus bill and would make offences aimed at those
types of forgeries punishable under the Criminal Code.
Bill C-51 is also an amendment to legislation regarding
non-communication orders. Previous speakers have highlighted
this as one of the more positive and more significant changes
brought about by Bill C-51 and I tend to concur with that
assessment. This amendment would allow a judge who remands or
denies the bail of an arrested person into custody to order that
they not communicate while in custody.
Mr. Speaker would know that unfortunately this does happen and
where the riding of Kingston also includes the Kingston
penitentiary, there are means now available for prisoners to
contact victims or contact other cohorts involved in their crime
or perhaps involved in the case itself that may still be pending
before the courts.
I suggest this is a very significant amendment that has been
brought forward and one which I commend the government for.
This amendment would the allow judge who remands the arrested
person into custody to order that they not communicate with any
witness or any other person between the time of the arrest and
the bail hearing for judicial interim release hearing. The law
currently deals with the judge's power to order non-communication
orders only at the time of the bail hearing. That lag time in
between does permit for this communication to occur.
With respect to gaming which is also touched by this bill and
the Criminal Code, we would like to highlight the fact that under
this bill to exempt international cruise boats from offences
pertaining to the Canadian gaming provisions is a positive
step as well.
Cruise boats would be able to operate casinos while in Canadian
waters, but not in Canadian ports. This has very broad sweeping
ramifications for the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec as
a significant number of cruise ships currently attend ports in
both of those provinces.
1200
The bill would also allow provincial governments to conduct and
manage dice games in order to compete with similar operations
that are under way in the United States. There are tremendous
earnings and tremendous amounts of money that change hands over
the dice games.
I have some concern with this provision in light of the ongoing
capitulation of the provincial Liberal government in my home
province of Nova Scotia in dealing with the ITT Sheraton casinos
in both Halifax and Sydney. I would like to see this amendment
further scrutinized by the justice committee to see exactly what
the long term ramifications will be.
Bill C-51 would also provide that a peace officer or agent is
not guilty of an offence while acting under and for the purposes
of upholding the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act. This amendment is aimed specifically at support
for front line police officers and officers who find themselves
in the line of duty in a situation that results in a charge
surrounding their behaviour. This would be outside any internal
disciplinary action that might be taken under a forum like the
RCMP Public Complaints Commission which is going on currently in
Vancouver.
This allows an opportune time to suggest to the House that the
commission as we have come to know it is aimed specifically at
police conduct, not the conduct of any individual outside the
RCMP Act. It is not the forum to look at situations such as
political interference that might come from sources like the PMO
or other bodies in Ottawa. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission
is a body that has a mandate set up to look at RCMP conduct and
to call witnesses and as we see under the current process, to
look at the actions specifically of officers of the RCMP.
This particular change to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act is an important move forward. Our party is in
support of this particular change. The act has been sorely
lacking and needs to have a change in this manner.
In conclusion I would like to express the guarded support of the
Progressive Conservative Party for these initiatives. We would
like to see further amendments as they are deemed appropriate
under this omnibus bill. Hopefully the government will take a
more open, constructive and non-partisan attitude toward bills
that are brought forward in the House as they pertain to justice
and criminal law in Canada.
We would have liked to have seen a number of changes to other
bills such as Bill C-3, the DNA data bank bill, or to the Bill
C-68 regulations at the very least if we could not have that bill
struck completely from the rolls. We would have liked to have
seen some amendments that perhaps would have been a little kinder
to organized shooting clubs and to members of the public
generally who are engaged in the lawful exercise of either
hunting or sport shooting. Sadly however, partisanship raises
its ugly head in the justice system as it does everywhere else.
I would like to give our guarded support and our guarded
optimistic view that the government has recognized the need for
changes in these justice bills in this omnibus bill. Bill C-51
is seen as a positive step forward.
A number of bills will be coming before the House in the next
weeks, months and years, bills such as the bill put forward by
the member for Mississauga East that deals specifically with the
issue of consecutive sentences. I advise the House at this time
that the Progressive Conservative Party will be in support of the
hon. member for Mississauga East in her ongoing efforts to have
the bill brought to fruition.
I will bring forward a bill with respect to changes to the
sentencing and probation provisions of the Criminal Code as they
pertain to the ability of a judge to put certain restrictions on
those convicted of sexual assault or assault against children.
It would allow a judge the ability to put restrictions so that a
person convicted of those types of offences would not be able to
attend the dwelling house and be in the presence of a child
without the supervision of an adult.
1205
I would take this opportunity again to commend Ms. Donna Goler
from Nova Scotia for bringing this to the attention of all
members of the House. Her ongoing efforts in this area are
extremely significant in light of her own personal tragedy.
Again, I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada with regard to these important
changes to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
I would be glad to take any questions from hon. members present
with respect to my remarks.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, again I comment quite favourably on the speech of the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, or New Glasgow
to be more specific. I thank him for his comments. There are a
couple of things I would like him to elaborate on if at all
possible.
He speaks of the solicitor general but after the last couple of
days, I think we should be speaking of the Office of the
Solicitor General because we in our party more or less think of
the current solicitor general in the de facto mode.
With regard to the responsibilities of the port police and what
has happened in Nova Scotia and Vancouver regarding two major
ports and the easier access organized crime now has to smuggle
contraband items of any kind, whether they are drugs, weapons,
forged money or whatever, those responsibilities are now merging
with the ones of the municipal police or the city police of the
area. Of course, I am in total disagreement with that. I really
appreciated the idea of a separate police force or enforcement
agency and that their business was strictly only that, not only
in the two major centres but in the smaller centres as well, in
the smaller ports.
He mentioned a concern about the drug trade and our cuts to
foreign aid. Would he and his party not also agree that one way
of reducing organized crime's efforts to bring in contraband
drugs for example, would be for our foreign affairs department,
our immigration department, CIDA, et cetera to give third world
countries more access to capital? Their farmers and people in the
agricultural industries, and I am thinking of Asia, Columbia and
other third world countries, would then get away from their
dependency on things like cocaine, heroin and poppy seeds and
would be able to concentrate on more economic alternatives.
As he knows, the cuts to foreign aid to these countries have
made these people very desperate for any cash or income of any
kind. They resort to what we would call the criminal element and
grow the cocaine and heroin that organized crime brings into our
country. Of course, the effect of cuts to our military and cuts
to our police allow organized crime to bring this contraband into
our major ports as well as to our coastal communities.
Communities on all three coasts are being devastated by economic
cuts in terms of fisheries and other related matters. People are
moving away from those communities and we do not even have a
civilian presence in some of these communities, which makes it
easier for organized crime to do its job.
I would like the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to
comment, please.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Sackville—Eastern Shore, a fellow Bluenoser. He is
obviously very aware of the fact that Nova Scotia in particular,
because of its extensive coastline is very vulnerable to the
importation of illegal drugs and other contraband material.
With respect to any number of the questions he posed, regarding
Canada's increased foreign aid as a means of attacking the
continued worldwide problem of production of drugs by less
financially sound countries, it may sound somewhat shallow but my
initial reaction is that we have a great deal to do in our own
country first.
1210
Canada has had a wonderful international reputation for having
given foreign aid to any number of countries, in any number of
causes and causes that are very important and very real. As the
hon. member knows, we have a very significant economic problem
facing our country, with a $600 billion debt, a dollar that is
continuing to fall on the international markets and decreasing
confidence from outside the country as to the economic stability
of Canada. In simple terms we have to clean up our backyard
first and foremost. If we cannot take care of things here, we
are not going to be in a position in the future to extend that
helping hand.
Regarding the member's comments on the ports police specifically
in Halifax which is close to his riding, there has been a very
unfortunate decision made by the current government to devolve or
do away with Canada's ports police on both the east coast and the
west coast. I know that there have been efforts made to absorb
some of those officers into the existing forces, like the Halifax
Metropolitan Police and the RCMP.
The fact remains, and the member has highlighted it in his
remarks, that the ports police served a very specific purpose.
They had specific training. They had a specific aim in combating
the movement of contraband material through ports in Canada.
The member makes the significant point that there are a number
of communities in Nova Scotia that not only do not have the
presence of law enforcement officers, but are virtually becoming
wastelands because of the departure of their citizens. Nova
Scotia and other maritime provinces have been facing this reality
and this unfortunate situation for a long time. Young, talented
and educated people are leaving because of the lack of work and
the lack of economic opportunities. That does not apply only to
the young, it applies to young and old and everybody in between.
This gives me the opportunity to state uncategorically that this
government has not done its job with respect to taking care of
all of the regions of this country, in particular the regions
such as the province the hon. member and I share and call our
home.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak after the
Progressive Conservative House leader and hear his words. I know
he was a prosecutor in his province. His words are taken well in
this House, in fact so well that I hope he will come to our
united alternative convention in February. He would make a great
solicitor general in a new government after the next election.
Canadians are very concerned about crime. On a scale of one to
ten, Canadians rated it 8.3. Compared to five years ago 91% of
Canadians are either much more or somewhat more concerned about
crime. Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians strongly or somewhat
agree that we should increase the severity of sentences of young
offenders who commit serious crimes.
Bill C-51 which is before us now at second reading could have
begun a change in the right direction and begun to address the
concerns of all Canadians. Instead it is late off the mark and
weak in areas such as child prostitution, conditional sentencing
and organized crime.
Why is the government so hesitant to provide alternatives to the
most likely to participate in crime? Why is the government so
hesitant to provide a tougher prison system and give the police
the resources to prevent and fight crime? We only have to look
at Bill C-3, the DNA bill.
Bill C-51 is the quintessential omnibus bill, an inch deep and a
mile wide. It is cosmetic at best and timid in its degree of
efficacy in change. Bill C-51 could have gone a lot further.
There are areas where the Reform Party will move amendments at
the appropriate stage of debate.
I ask the following questions concerning Bill C-51 and the
impact it has on the feelings of Canadians concerning crime.
In 1982, 35% of Canadians were afraid of walking alone at night;
today 42% are afraid. Does Bill C-51 do anything to change that?
In 1982, 61% of Canadians were afraid of having their homes
burglarised; today 63% share that fear.
1215
Does Bill C-51 do anything to allay these fears? In 1982, 48%
of Canadians were afraid to go downtown alone. Today 58% are
afraid to go downtown alone. Does Bill C-51 do anything to
dispel these fears? It is not what is in Bill C-51 that is
objectionable. It is what is not in Bill C-51 that concerns the
Reform Party.
Bill C-51 surely reflects how the government feels about crime:
don't get tough, shuffle some paper, commission a study, hire a
consultant, and above all don't offend criminals.
Let us take a look at the specifics of Bill C-51 and what we are
being asked to support. The whole concept of conditional
sentencing from the start has been ill conceived and an
unfortunate episode. In Bill C-51 the loophole in conditional
sentencing of having time on a conditional sentence, even when
the person is alleged to have breached the condition, is now
closed and the hearing can now go beyond 30 days.
This is an acceptable change, but it does not address the most
glaring problem with conditional sentencing, specifically its use
for violent offenders. Why would the minister ignore this
obvious issue? This is the real problem in the area of
conditional sentencing. Why avoid it again? The bottom line is
that conditional sentencing should not be used for violent
offenders. Case after case in this area begs for change. The
minister will only go so far to correct the problem and then she
pulls back.
A simple amendment to section 742.1 to exempt convictions for
serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 would
prevent such travesties as the two Haitian rapists in Montreal
last year who did not go to jail. This was a particularly
heinous crime by violent individuals who received a conditional
sentence, and the two Haitians are licensed to do it again thanks
to conditional sentencing. Is there any sense of justice or
backbone in the government?
We can be accused in the House of being partisan. Let me quote
what a few judges, who everyone in the House would agree are not
partisan, say about conditional sentencing. An article in the
Edmonton Sun headlined “Top judges skeptical of soft
sentence trend” read:
Early trends in conditional sentencing, a method of punishing
offenders that is still in its infancy, got a damning review by
Alberta's highest court yesterday.
Chief Justice Catherine Fraser in a decision indicated:
Surgery should not be performed simply because a surgeon has a
new scalpel—. Improperly used or skimpily drafted, it will
undermine the respect for the law. Like all tools or
instruments, it is to be used for the right situation, not the
wrong situation.
This was a judge talking about conditional sentencing, not a
politician. In a 50 page ruling the appeals justices detailed
several major complaints they had with the way judges and lawyers
had been applying the reforms. Yet we see no changes in the
legislation which will allay the fears of judges.
Another articled headlined “Judges attack improper
use—conditional sentencing undermines respect for the law”
read:
Alberta's highest court criticized judges across Canada for the
unimaginative and skimpy conditional sentences they've imposed
and urged them to be tough and creative instead.
These are judges talking about a law brought in by parliament,
and the bill does nothing to change that.
Even the Minister of Justice in a headline in the Edmonton
Journal supports a court ruling critical of conditional
sentencing. I quote from the Edmonton Journal:
Canada's justice minister says she's pleased with an Alberta
Court of Appeal decision critical of the way in which conditional
sentences are applied across the country.
“There have been some circumstances in which I believe
conditional sentences were used when it was not the intention of
parliament to have them used, and those should be appealed”—
That is what the justice minister said Thursday. The justice
minister had an opportunity with the bill to make changes so that
the courts do not have to appeal these things. She could have
made the changes and she did not make the changes. That is why
the bill is faulty. That is why we will move amendments when the
time comes.
I could go on and on. I have quotes from newspapers across the
country indicating that judges, lawyers and Canadians do not like
the conditional sentencing that has been brought in by the
government.
In a survey of 850 police, lawyers, probation officers and
corrections staff the following was revealed: 90% thought the
sentences imposed by the courts were not respected and 69%
thought the actual amount of time served should be the same as
the sentence imposed.
Is it not an amazing thought that somebody can be given some time
in jail by a judge and other people in the system would allow
them out in a very short period of time? We have all heard of
how short some of these sentences really are.
1220
Some 76% of the people in the business thought criminals avoided
jail too often and 55% considered the law to be too soft. As one
crown attorney said, this does not make any sense. If we do not
have the resources to keep somebody in jail then let us not
sentence them to jail. The system is losing credibility.
One judge out of eleven interviewed said:
Fundamentally, they couldn't care less what we say when we send
someone to jail for 30 days and they only serve 5. It's as if we
miscalculated and we were fools for imposing 30 day sentences
when they did not deserve them.
When judges imposes a 30 day sentence it should be a 30 day
sentence, but the government through its legislation makes the
judges look like they are fools. Bill C-51 does nothing to solve
the problem. It is about time we had some real truth in
sentencing. It could start with Bill C-51 if the government had
the will. We will move amendments, hoping the government has the
will.
I will discuss another story in relation to conditional
sentencing. Domenico Tozzi, the greatest money launderer in
Canadian history, was sentenced to 10 years and a fine of
$150,000 for his role in the importation of 2,500 kilos of
cocaine plus 25 tonnes of hashish. When he did not pay his fine
the sentence was increased to 12 years and he was released after
only serving two years in jail.
I do not know what 2,500 kilos of cocaine and 25 tonnes of
hashish are worth, but I would guarantee it is in the millions. A
judge put him in jail for 10 years and gives him a $150,000 fine.
He wondered why he should pay the fine if he would only get two
more years in jail. Then our great system allowed this man back
on the streets after just two years in jail.
Bill C-51 does nothing to solve that problem. We are going to
make amendments to it. As my Conservative colleague said,
hopefully the government and the rest of the House can work on
this in a non-partisan way to bring in laws all Canadians want.
Ex-lawyer Joseph Lagana was involved in the importation of 558
kilos of cocaine and in laundering $47.4 million. He was
sentenced by a judge to 13 years. He was released after two
years and two months to a halfway house where he is free from 6
a.m. to 11 p.m.
What message does that send to Canadians? He imported cocaine
which kills young people and laundered $47.4 million. That
probably goes right over top of of the average Canadian's head.
It is astounding. Average Canadians cannot even think of figures
that large. What does he get? Two years and two months.
That shows young people that a life of crime pays. It creates
career criminals. Will this man go back to an honest job? Will
anybody in Canada be convinced that after two years and two
months he has been rehabilitated?
Anthony Volpato, described by the papers as one of the leading
figures in the Montreal Mafia, was sentenced to six years for
conspiracy to import 180 kilos of cocaine. He was freed after
only one year. This kind of sentencing has to stop and we have
to make amendments to the bill to make sure it stops.
Let us talk about organized crime, another area in which Bill
C-51 is sadly lacking. As Bill C-51 implies organized crime
figures are not choir boys. Why would we treat them that way?
The minister thinks she is getting tough in Bill C-51 by
eliminating the accelerated parole hearing after one-sixth of a
sentence has been served. It is better than before. Organized
crime figures will still have access to day parole and be
released after serving one-third of their sentences.
1225
As I said in my previous comments on conditional sentencing,
this is a joke. It is objectionable, unacceptable and naive.
Organized crime laughs at going to jail for a couple of years.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you like going to the movies. The part
of the bill on organized crime kind of reminds me of the movie
Goodfellows. In that movie three Mafia members were
convicted of a crime and doing time by having pasta dinners in
prison. They are sitting tight being model prisoners, knowing
they will get out before their full sentence is served. The
notion and the part of the movie with the Mafia members drinking
Chianti and making pasta is as comical as Bill C-51 in that
regard.
Let me remind the justice minister that members of criminal
organizations are by definition in section 2 members of a group
of at least five persons, formally or informally organized,
having as a primary activity the commission of an indictable
offence and the members having been in the preceding five years
in a series of such offences. That is very serious stuff. In
short, these people should be held for their full sentences. They
should not get full parole as Bill C-51 allows. Serious crime,
serious time. We have to get that message across to organized
crime.
These people should not enjoy the generous system of day parole,
full parole and statutory release. There should be no exception
for organized crime. Does the minister really believe, be it
one-sixth or one-third, that these people can be rehabilitated in
such a short period of time?
I gave an example before of those with 13 years sentences being
out in two years for crimes involving millions of dollars. They
will, as the movie Goodfellows portrays so accurately, sit
tight, keep up the connections while incarcerated and return to
their lives of crime when released. Is the minister expecting
organized crime members to have some sort of Epiphany while in
prison? This is another sadly lacking element in Bill C-51 and
one we cannot support.
Let me turn to another item lacking in Bill C-51 in the area of
child prostitution. Bill C-51 calls for giving police more tools
in the juvenile prostitution area. All Canadians say wonderful,
that is great. Living off the avails of a child prostitute,
keeping a common bawdy house and using an underage prostitute are
made offences justifying the issuance of a wiretap order. The
offence of attempting to obtain such services is expanded to
include communicating with anyone for the purpose of
prostitution.
This is commendable, but surely we could go further in dealing
with this parasitic behaviour by sick people who prey on
juveniles. Right off the top, how about a mandatory minimum jail
sentence for those convicted of procuring under 18 year olds? Why
not send a clear message that society frowns on such perverted,
exploitive behaviour?
Let us get these offenders off the street and let us keep them
off the street. Why is the government so fearful to change the
penalty which remains at five years maximum? The fact is no one
changes the penalty. Judges give discharges, suspend the
sentence or impose the good old conditional sentence.
Too many young children in our big cities today are getting into
child prostitution. We have to let the pimps know, the people
involved in that business, that the Parliament of Canada does not
accept that. It is happening too often in our cities today. The
life of crime has been shown to these young people as a way to
live. We have a responsibility with the bill to toughen this law
and reduce child prostitution. My party will put those
amendments in the proper place.
Around and around the charade goes. The government is doing
nothing to change this perverted procurement by perverted
individuals. A slap on the wrist will not be a deterrent, and
the tools we just gave the police to wiretap are moot. Give with
one hand, take away with the other. This ensures inertia, which
is a specialty of the government.
It is time to get serious with child prostitution. The Reform
Party wants mandatory jail time for first offences and repeat
offenders to get triple time with no possibility of serving a
sentence intermittently.
1230
I put the minister on notice. This is not good enough and we
will deal appropriately at committee and report stage with this
aspect of Bill C-51.
Another area of the Criminal Code that begged for change and for
a change got it is the so-called year and a day rule for
homicide. It only took 12 years for this lethargic government to
move on a recommendation first made by the Law Reform Commission
back in 1987. The commission brought this forth and recommended
an immediate amendment 12 years ago. But in typical government
fashion it had to be studied to death and the government waited
to stick this necessary and easy amendment into an omnibus bill.
One simple bill and one simple line would have accomplished this
but the government has to wait for another example of an outdated
law allowing a heinous crime to go unpunished; a government would
be so lackadaisical as to allow a law to stand which allows a
killer to avoid a murder charge if the death of the person he
assaults is a year and a day after the offence. As my colleague
says, there is just no value on life. Why does it take so long?
It is absolutely incredible.
Allow me to tell a story that finally shook the government out
of its sleepiness into including an amendment in this bill. It
involves a mentally challenged 50 year old Winnipeg man, Marvin
Ward, who was savagely beaten by a 17 year old using a baseball
bat. The perpetrator stole a grand total of 75 cents in the
robbery of Mr. Ward.
Unfortunately Mr. Ward died 14 months after the vicious attack.
Due to the centuries old law, as I said earlier that was
recommended to be changed in 1987, the government allowed to
languish on the books, the individual could not be charged for
murder because Mr. Ward died more than a year after the attack.
This punk served 28 months in closed custody for robbery and
assault with a weapon, because the law was not changed, even
though an amendment was recommended in 1987. This government
should be ashamed that it took this long to make this kind of
change.
Why in the world have successive governments allowed this law to
go unchanged knowing how easy it would have been to change it and
reverse this travesty that took place? It is tragic. Despite
the Law Reform Commission expression of concern in 1987, a
recommendation by the federal-provincial working group on
homicide in 1991 and consultations in 1994-95 by the justice
department on the general causation rule nothing was done.
In March 1997 the former minister of justice promised to change
the law. It was reiterated by the current minister in September
1997. Why did the current minister wait so long? It was just to
tie it into a series of unrelated amendments contained in Bill
C-51. Surely there was more urgency or was she just embarrassed
by her inaction as she thought no one would notice it hidden away
in Bill C-51, the omnibus bill?
The member for Wild Rose attempted through his private member's
Bill C-215 to change this year and a day disgrace. Unfortunately
it was not deemed votable. It was another example of the Reform
Party leading the way on criminal justice and dragging this lazy
government along into the present day.
As Lee Iaccoca used to say, lead, follow or get out of the way.
That is certainly not the motto of this government. It does not
get out of the way. It certainly does not lead but it is pretty
good at following. Liberals just sit back, wait, follow and then
when they get embarrassed they sneak it into the middle of a
bill.
The government's delay is inexcusable. During debate on the
bill by the member for Wild Rose the government's lethargy was
exposed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
said: “While there is little doubt that change ought to occur,
it may be premature to support this bill at this time”. How
often do we hear that? Whether it is in committee or in this
House, it is premature to do it at this time because it is not
the government's idea.
1235
A great example of this is a private member's bill that passed
in the House the other day because members on the other side on
the back benches are maybe getting a little restless when certain
people are getting fired and moved around. So to show a little
independence they pass a private member's bill. Wait until it
gets to committee and they pull the whips out. A good bill will
die and that is unfortunate.
Can anyone believe the parliamentary secretary? What more proof
did she need? She and her government could not bring themselves
to support this initiative and we had to wait until they got
around to drafting their own amendment. This was not only
insecure and petty on their part, it was also negligent for them
to allow this issue to drag on.
There is not a lot to support in this dog's breakfast of
amendments. A lot of it could have been done incrementally over
the years if the government were not so lazy. The important part
is that we will be ready to scrutinize the other aspects of this
legislation and prepared to deal with substantive amendments as
we proceed.
Many support a triple E Senate. How about a triple E justice
system, effective, efficient and equitable. It is time we get
started.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-51 today. This is a bill
that makes at least 12 amendments to the Criminal Code
I will give you examples of some of the amendments, in order to
demonstrate what a catchall it is. One could call it a
tutti-frutti bill. It tries to cover all the bases. I would
like to list some of the amendments.
The purpose of the bill is to widen the scope of the offence of
obtaining the services of a prostitute under eighteen years old;
to modernize the provisions concerning the offence of making
likenesses of bank notes; and to bring deceptive telemarketing
offences against the Competition Act under the forfeiture
provisions for the proceeds of crime.
These are but a few of the amendments, and I have listed them to
demonstrate how impossible it is to seriously address all of
these aspects—scattered as they are—in the time allotted me.
I would, however, like to point out that this bill marks a great
victory for the Bloc Quebecois. The section in question is the
one on cruise ship casinos. This will have a definite economic
impact on the Quebec City region, my riding in particular. I
will come back to this later.
I would also like to mention the Bloc Quebecois' partial victory
concerning amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act that exclude those convicted of organized-crime offences from
eligibility for accelerated parole review.
These amendments to the Criminal Code are a result of the
pressure brought to bear by the Bloc Quebecois, which introduced
private members' bills in the House. They are certainly the
result of the many questions put by the members with
responsibility for these files.
Today, as I have already mentioned, I will be focusing on the
Criminal Code amendment that permits the operation of casinos on
international cruise ships that are Canadian or in Canadian
waters. If time permits, I would also like to speak to the
amendment having to do with eligibility for accelerated parole
review.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports the bill introduced by the
Minister of Justice yesterday, which we are discussing today,
all the more so as it is the response to a request that goes
back more than 10 years. Ten years ago, Port of Quebec
authorities made a request, which has had the strong support of
the Bloc Quebecois since we arrived on the federal political
scene in 1993.
For 10 years, these harbour authorities have been asking for an
amendment to the Criminal Code. It is a small amendment, but
one which has deprived the entire Quebec City area of important
economic benefits in various sectors of the tourism industry.
1240
I would therefore like to take a few moments to look at the
existing legislation, so as to shed some light on the proposed
legislation.
Games of chance, including casinos, come under federal
jurisdiction, and are prohibited under the Criminal Code except
where authorized by a competent provincial authority under
section 207 of the Code.
Because casinos on board ship fall under the Criminal Code
definition of gaming houses, enforcement of the federal
legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces as
soon as a ship arrives in one of the ports on their territory,
if the ship has committed an offence at any point since it
entered Canadian territorial waters 12 miles off the coast line.
This is not much of a disadvantage for international cruise
ships headed for ports in British Columbia or the maritimes.
Why? Because those ports are just 12 miles away from
international waters, all gambling activities are shut down just
before docking, which is not the case for the St. Lawrence
ports. When ships enter the St. Lawrence, they come under the
Criminal Code as soon as they are 12 miles off the eastern tip
of Anticosti Island.
This means that gaming tables have to be shut down as soon as
they pass that strategic point and remain shut down until they
sail out of Canadian territorial waters, which takes two to
three days.
When tourists pay for cruises that have casinos, it is because
they want to be able to gamble. The Quebec City region was
penalized because all casino activity had to be shut down as
soon as they were off Anticosti Island. This meant that, for
two or three days before arrival at the Quebec City and other
St. Lawrence ports, passengers could not use the casino. It is
therefore quite clear how much Quebec City was at a
disadvantage.
As well, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, casino
activities in Canada were legal only if directly operated by a
provincial government, or under provincial licence by a
religious or charitable organization or the board of a fair or
exhibition.
Only an amendment to the Criminal Code could settle the question
of casinos aboard cruise ships, and today I can state that, as
the MP for the riding of Québec, I am pleased the government has
finally been able to make this amendment to the legislation.
Let us now look at how the proposed legislative amendment will
remedy the situation. Clause 7 of Bill C-51 proposes an
amendment to the Criminal Code which will make it possible for
casinos to operate on board ship provided they are not within
five nautical miles of a Canadian port at which the ship calls
or is scheduled to call.
Unless I am mistaken, a distance of five nautical miles means
about 12 kilometres before arriving to the port. So, we are very
pleased with that provision.
Interestingly, one of the positive aspects of these amendments
is that they only change in a minor way the legislation
prohibiting the operation of casinos in Canada, except for
section 207 of the Criminal Code. In spite of its minor
importance, this legislative amendment will have a major impact
for the province of Quebec. Because of Bill C-51, the St.
Lawrence River will finally be on the same footing as the other
Canadian maritime regions, such as Vancouver and Halifax, to
name but two.
And this fair balance will be restored without having to change
the spirit of the law, and without affecting in any way the
plans that some provincial governments may have about operating
casinos.
Indeed, this legislation does not seek to compete with casinos
operated by the Government of Quebec or by other provinces. The
gambling rooms will be closed when the ship is in a port.
While we stress the fairness that the new legislation will bring
about, we should not forget the major economic spinoffs that it
will provide for the Quebec City area. The cruise industry has
an economic impact of several millions of dollars for the Quebec
City region.
1245
Studies indicate that each tourist spends $110 when a ship calls
at a port. Since the provision of the Criminal Code currently in
effect prevents about 25 ships with an average of 1,000 to 1,500
passengers from coming to Quebec City, the resulting shortfall
is huge. It totals $2.5 million per year, and we have been
asking for that change for 10 years. It is pretty easy to figure
out that an annual shortfall of $2.5 million over a 10 year
period represents a considerable amount of money for the Quebec
City region.
Supposing that more cruise ships—and everyone knows that the
industry is growing—stayed longer, what economic impact would
this have on the tourism industry in the greater Quebec City
region?
Clearly put, the new legislation will have a major economic
impact on our region, lengthening the tourism season and
increasing activity.
The decision will have an effect on the life of Quebec City and
bring in even more tourists. It could even cause tourists
caught in the charm of Quebec City during a stop there to return
to visit our region and to promote it within their own
communities. We are delighted.
We must remind those watching us and our colleagues in this
House that the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill quite
similar to Bill C-51, and that was in 1995. The Bloc Quebecois
has been very active since its arrival in Ottawa in an attempt
to correct this inequity.
My colleague from
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans introduced
a bill in the House in February 1997 with the full support of
the members in the caucus from the Quebec City region. Because
of the election in 1997, he had to start all over, as he did in
June. A number of press conferences followed the tabling of
these two bills. The Bloc Quebecois was persistent in this
matter, because of the economic benefits for the region.
So, I remind you that the request from the Quebec City port
authorities is 10 years old and that many stakeholders were
steadfast in their support of our action to have the Criminal
Code amended. They include the Quebec City Urban Community, the
Quebec City Region Tourist and Convention Bureau, the
Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du St. Lawrence, the Corporation
of the Lower St. Lawrence Pilots, the Société de développement
économique du Saint-Laurent, the Quebec department of tourism,
and representatives of the business community. They were all
behind us to have the legislation changed.
We are delighted Bill C-51 has been changed to permit the
operation of casinos on cruise ships, but we regret the slowness
of the federal government and its lack of flexibility.
Bloc members had to press hard for this bill before our efforts
finally paid off.
If we relate this issue to other issues, it seems paradoxical
that a controversial bill like Bill C-36 establishing the
millennium scholarships, for example, would be adopted as
quickly as it was. I sat on the committee. A few weeks is all it
took to change the legislation and establish the scholarships.
The consensus in Quebec was against this legislation, unlike the
one concerning cruise ships. We were against the establishment
of a millennium scholarship foundation and we find the federal
government's logic lacking when it comes to legislation that
could favour Quebec.
For Bill C-36 establishing the millennium scholarships that no
one in Quebec supported, the Liberal government managed to find
$2.5 billion in two weeks.
1250
But a minor change to the Criminal Code, with a major economic
impact, took 10 years. The logic of this government still eludes
us, when it is quick to act on issues that serve its interests
and drags its feet on those serving Quebec's economic interests.
If I have a few minutes left, I would like to address the part
of Bill C-51 dealing with eligibility for accelerated parole
review. Here again, we feel the government is not going far
enough. Granted, this would be a major change. It would give
teeth to our legislation dealing with certain drug traffickers.
I will use the few minutes I have left to try to explain how
this amendment could prove worthwhile and be improved upon by
the government.
In August 1997, we learned of the Lagana affair from newspaper
reports. A lawyer had been sentenced in 1995 to 13 years in
prison for importing cocaine and laundering $47.4 million. As we
know, Mr. Lagana was released after serving only 26 months, or
one-sixth of his sentence, because he had become eligible for
accelerated parole review. After serving just one-sixth of his or
her sentence, any non-violent criminal who has never done time
before may apply for parole.
In response, the Bloc Quebecois, through the member for
Charlesbourg, introduced a private member's bill to eliminate
this accelerated procedure for those found guilty of money
laundering.
In Bill C-51, the government wants to correct this situation.
It is proposing to exclude those convicted of organized crime
offences from eligibility for accelerated parole review. This
amendment is a step in the right direction, but it is limited to
the provision of the Criminal Code dealing with organized crime.
It does not affect bankers, individuals or lawyers convicted of
money laundering who are not part of organized crime. Such
individuals may therefore continue to launder millions of
dollars and serve only one sixth of their sentence in jail.
We would have liked to see this amendment extended to include
lawyers and bankers who launder money.
This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. We in the
Bloc Quebecois will not stand for another case like that of
Lagana. We will introduce amendments to make up for the Liberal
government's lack of courage.
We would also have liked to see $1,000 bank notes taken out of
circulation, because we know that it is easier to launder that
denomination. We are one of the only countries in the world
with this denomination in circulation.
We would also like financial institutions to be permitted to
alert the police about suspicious transactions of $10,000 and
over.
I will not be able to address all the other items.
Since there are a good dozen amendments in Bill C-51, it is
difficult to give them the attention they deserve in a mere
fifteen or twenty minutes.
In conclusion, as I mentioned, we are very happy with the
Criminal Code amendment having to do with cruise ships.
1255
[English]
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-51 this afternoon, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Canadians have been waiting for many, many months to finally see
legislation from our Minister of Justice. One would almost think
that justice reform is not a very high priority with this
government.
Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill which will make amendments to the
criminal law. It is an attempt to respond to the changing
conditions within our society. Much of what is being proposed is
long overdue. Many of the proposals within this bill make sense
and cause very little concern. Canadians must wonder why these
issues have not been addressed before now.
It is unfortunate that this minister and this government
continue to lurch ahead with half measures because of politics.
Canadians continue to be shortchanged when it comes to
improvements to our criminal law.
First I have a brief comment on the bill's proposal to amend
section 186 of the Criminal Code. It concerns invasion of
privacy under part VI of the code.
In the 1970s the federal government introduced a whole scheme to
permit police to legally intercept private communications to
assist them in their investigations.
The law permitted authorized personnel to install, maintain and
monitor communications through the installation of devices such
as bugs or wiretaps. It has taken over 20 years for the
government to amend the legislation to also permit the authorized
removal of those bugs and wiretaps. I suppose this falls into
the category of “better late than never”.
Bill C-51 proposes to permit the operation of casinos on
international cruise ships that are Canadian or operating in
Canadian waters. Dice games will now be permitted and will be
managed by the provinces and territories.
While it can be argued that casinos and dice games will improve
the competitive nature of Canadian assets, there is significant
opposition to gambling of any form in many parts of the country.
I will be interested in the justice committee review of this
legislation.
I understand that international cruise ships which operate
within the Canadian inside passage route to Alaska already
operate casinos within Canadian waters. It will be interesting
to see just how this has occurred.
Another proposal would eliminate the requirement for a victim to
die within a year and a day of an assault in order that a charge
of murder, manslaughter or causing death by criminal negligence
can be brought. With modern medical advancements it has become
much easier to maintain victims on life support for extended
periods of time.
Charges and convictions were often based merely on when the life
support machines were turned off. Individuals who cause the
death of others must be accountable for their actions, no matter
how long the victims manage to hang on.
It seems impossible, but this government and its predecessors
have been permitting killers to walk free just because their
victims have managed to survive, often in a comatose or
vegetative state.
One can only begin to imagine the anguish foisted on a family
when they learn that the perpetrator has escaped justice because
their loved one lived too long. This problem was first discussed
12 years ago and, as I have stated, some provisions are long
overdue.
This bill contains a proposal to amend the offence section for
the prostitution of a person under 18 years of age. It is
amendments such as this that illustrate why it appears to take
forever for this government to bring forth much needed
legislation.
Bill C-51 proposes to amend section 212(4) of the code. I note
that just last year Bill C-27 amended the same section. A number
of thoughts cross my mind when I look at this. I wonder whether
the previous Minister of Justice did not know what he was doing
the first time around. I wonder whether this government even has
a plan to address juvenile prostitution. I wonder why they
refuse to consider increasing the penalty for engaging the
services of our children.
Why will they not legislate an increase in the age of consent
from 14 to 16 years for sexual activity between a young person
and an adult?
Two weeks ago, while in my constituency, I attended a function
at which Diane Sowden, the courageous mother of one of these
sexually exploited young people, was honoured with an award from
the attorney general of British Columbia for her tireless
devotion to these issues. I have presented numerous petitions in
this House on her behalf, but still nothing from this government.
I have similar concerns over amending section 742.6 of the code.
Again I wonder whether the previous Minister of Justice got
anything right during his term in the position. Section 742.6
came into being through Bill C-41 in 1995. It concerns the very
controversial conditional sentencing provision whereby criminals
are permitted to serve their sentences at home to avoid the costs
of incarceration.
In spite of Reform Party proposals to limit conditional
sentencing to non-violent and non-drug offenders, the former
minister maintained that he knew better and made it quite clear
that he was not open to changes.
1300
Nevertheless there was soon public outrage over the weakness of
the legislation. Violent criminals were being released back into
the community almost every day without serving any time in jail
for their crimes.
The former minister of justice appears to be joining in the
Prime Minister's mantra of don't worry, be happy. Perhaps he
was auditioning for the role.
Eventually pressures became so great that he was compelled to
amend his conditional sentencing legislation. But did he limit
it to non-violent, non-drug offenders? No, he cranked up the
spin machine to con Canadians into thinking that he was making
major improvements when in reality he was only tinkering, again.
In Bill C-17, which was passed in 1997, he tried to persuade our
courts to pay more attention to community safety when considering
conditional sentencing. But even today we find hardened and
dangerous criminals still receiving this Liberal perk of serving
a sentence in the comfort of their own home.
For example, we have recently seen police raising serious
concerns over losing the battle against organized crime.
Canadians have witnessed vastly increased violence among biker
gangs as they fight over control of criminal activity.
The solicitor general has been quick to board the political
bandwagon to announce a strategic partnership with the provinces,
the police and customs officials. I wonder what he must think
and what he can say when recently a member of the Hell's Angels
was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to serve his time
in the comfort of his own home.
This government is once again amending the conditional
sentencing legislation but as usual it is failing to properly
address one of its most fundamental flaws.
Last but not least, the minister wants to change the accelerated
parole provisions. They messed with sections in Bill C-45 in
1995 and that same year in Bill C-55 they reduced parole
eligibility to one sixth of the sentence. They had another go at
it with Bill C-95 in 1997 and now they want to change the section
again to exempt organized criminals from receiving such lenient
early parole eligibility.
In their rush to reduce prison populations they changed the law
to permit the release at one sixth but now realizing that
organized gang members are not very nice people, they say they
should serve a little more time than that. Reality, what a
concept.
Perhaps they should consider truth in sentencing. Many citizens
are disillusioned with our justice system just because of
instances such as this whereby the government acts irrationally,
without forethought and with purely political motives.
If criminals were properly sentenced and served those sentences
citizens would be much more inclined to understand and support
that process.
I would like to address the funding problems of the RCMP we are
having in B.C. RCMP boats are tied up, helicopters are grounded,
and there have been overtime bans. My riding is in the city of
Surrey, a large city of over 300,000. It is the largest
detachment of the RCMP in Canada. Frontline officers have
serious concerns about their abilities to provide adequate
services and protection to the public. My constituents would
like some answers.
The attorney general of British Columbia is now talking about
getting rid of the RCMP altogether and forming a provincial
police force. He has been requesting a meeting with the
solicitor general to discuss these funding problems. Maybe they
could meet on an airplane.
I have asked the solicitor general what he is doing about the
problems with the violent crimes linkage analysis system in B.C.
I have not received any answers. I see today in newspaper
reports that the Minister of Justice is now concerned that her
youth justice proposals may be in jeopardy unless she can pry
some money out of the Minister of Finance.
She did not seem so concerned about that last spring when she
unveiled her proposals amid much fanfare and glossy brochures. I
have to wonder if this is just another example of a whole lot of
talk and no action.
Now instead citizens are told that murderers are to receive life
in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years only to learn
later that there is a chance of parole in as early as 15 years.
They are told that the government is getting touch on crime by
increasing sentences only to discover the same government is
reducing the period of eligibility for parole to only one sixth
of the sentence.
They are told that the government is seriously interested in
attacking organized crime. Then they see drug dealing gang
members serve their sentences at home.
I have serious reservations over some provisions of this bill.
Some elements are long overdue and that is a travesty in itself.
Other aspects are a result of this government's again changing
its own legislation within months because instead of getting it
right the first time it waits until there is a public backlash.
And in some cases this government once again only goes half way
toward addressing the problem.
Unless this legislation is amended in the areas of juvenile
prostitution and conditional sentencing I will be opposing it.
1305
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague and friend this
question. Would he not deny that when we see the cutback in
police forces across Canada, not just in his area but across the
prairies as well, while at the same time we see a massive
increase according to the newspapers in the amount of organized
criminal activity, we are going in the wrong direction? We
should be building up our police forces, not cutting them back.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree
with that. We are certainly going in the wrong direction. All
across the country people are asking for more public safety, more
police on the streets and more protection.
The surge in gang organized crime on the west coast is
phenomenal. It is completely out of control. With the shutting
down of the port police in Vancouver, with the problems at the
airport, with the problems of drugs coming in, with the biker
gang problems in Quebec, we are certainly going the wrong way. I
think it is about time the solicitor general and the Minister of
Justice got this through their heads and start doing what
Canadians are asking for.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to hear the member from the Reform Party
speak because he speaks with compassion from what he knows.
As the hon. member knows, we spend a lot of money in this
country defending ourselves against the importation of contraband
i.e. drugs and everything else. As I asked my question earlier to
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I would now like
to ask this member as well. Would the member not agree that part
of the solution would be to increase our foreign aid to third
world countries that make this contraband we are talking about?
We should hit it right at the source. Would that not alleviate
some of the problems we are facing?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. I would have to agree to a certain extent
about what the member says but I would also agree with the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that we have to take care of
the problems here at home first. We have to do something about
the importation of drugs.
The problem is an international problem and I do not think we
are going to solve it by ourselves by spending a lot of money on
foreign aid. I think it has to be a concerted attack on the
international scene. We have to deal with it more seriously at
home and we have to start to address the importation and the
major importers. We have to start looking at things such as
possible life sentences for major importers with no parole for 25
years and total confiscation of drug assets. We have to start at
the top.
I agree that what the member is suggesting could be part of the
solution but we have to deal with the problems here at home
first.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: 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)
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the bill stands referred
to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
* * *
TOBACCO ACT
The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-42, an act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
1310
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to say a few things on the Tobacco Act and the resolution of the
government to make some changes to the bill before us.
A number of years ago when I was an instructor at a technical
institute, I remember having a number of students who took up the
habit of smoking. We all know that it is a habit that is very
addictive. In fact, of all the people I have spoken to over the
years, and I am old enough to have spoken to a number of them who
got hooked on this habit, a number of them have said to me that
they wish they had never started because once you are hooked it
is very difficult to stop. It is almost as bad as eating. Once
you start eating it is very difficult to quit.
Over all the years I have spoken to people who smoke, I have
never once encountered a single individual who suggested to me
that I should start. It is such a devastating thing for health
reasons and also for costs.
On several occasions as a mathematics instructor I was able to
persuade some of my students to stop smoking. I did that by
utilizing part of my curriculum in the math department. Whether
I was teaching computing and how to set up functions on a
computer or whether I was teaching exponential functions, one of
the things we did in the realm of math or finance was to talk
about the future value of a deposit annuity.
I specifically remember one student who admitted to me that he
smoked about one and half packs of cigarettes a day and that his
wife smoked well over a pack a day. Between the two of them they
were putting almost three packs a day away.
It is very costly to do this. A lot of people look at the price
of a package of cigarettes and think only of the present value of
that. However, as anyone who has ever sold RRSPs or anything
else in terms of accumulating value can attest, value is greatly
enhanced exponentially as one makes deposits over a long period
of time.
I do not remember the exact numbers nor do I remember at the
time what the prevailing interest rates were, but I remember my
students when they were learning to use their electronic
calculators, learning exponential functions and learning computer
programming. I had the students compute the function 365
multiplied by 5, if that was the price of cigarettes, multiplied
by the nominal interest rate, say .1 because in those days it
would have been around 10%, divide by, in big square brackets, 1
minus 1.1 to the power of say 45, that number of course
representing the number of years a student would work from age 20
after finishing his or her degree and working until age 65.
The students as part of their exercise computed the accumulated
value of their cigarette money. If instead of putting the money
into cigarettes they had put it into an RRSP, it came to, as I
recall, $1.3 million with the assumptions that I used. I had a
number of students tell me they were going to change. They said
that instead of smoking and having nothing when they retire, they
were going to put their $5 a day into a little box and once a
month they were going to run it down to their RRSP agent and when
they retired they would have $1.3 million on which to retire.
That is the financial cost of smoking.
We all know of the human and health costs. There is absolutely
no justification for people who get hooked on cigarettes. They
cannot justify it from a health point of view, not for themselves
and not for those around them in their own household or in their
office. As a result we have seen in the last number of years a
great increase in the number of buildings which have become
non-smoking buildings because of the devastating health effects.
One could probably see in the future a massive lawsuit against
cigarette manufacturers. They will be held legally responsible
for the devastation they have caused, the early deaths that have
been caused and the problems this has caused, not only to the
lives of smokers, but also to the lives of their family members.
1315
I do not know whether it is going to come to that or not, but we
have certainly had lawsuits of great magnitude in recent years on
different issues. Maybe that is going to come. Maybe the
cigarette companies are going to have to tally up one of these
days and admit that they have caused a lot of devastation.
I say to the Liberal government that ever since we came to the
House in 1993 this has been an issue. Very little has been done.
As a matter of fact, shortly after we arrived the government
took the unusual step of reducing the tax on cigarettes. Its
claim was that this would reduce the criminal act of smuggling
illegal cigarettes into the country. If the price of cigarettes
sold at the counter was reduced, then the motivation for
smuggling would decrease and that would reduce smuggling.
I do not think that is a good principle. If we were to take the
logic of that principle and apply it to other areas I suppose we
could legalize bank robberies, prostitution, theft, embezzlement
and other things and, lo and behold, there would be no more
crime. It would be a wonderful way of fighting crime, just by
declaring that everything we do that is wrong is not a crime any
more. Our jails would be empty and we could proclaim ourselves
to be the most wonderful country in the world.
Over the years successive governments have tried to reduce the
amount of smoking by increasing taxes and, to a degree, they were
effective. I personally know people who, when the next tax
increase kicked in, said “That is it for me. That pushes the
straw onto the camel's back. That breaks his legs and I am not
going to smoke any more”. Increased costs in fact do act as a
deterrent. I believe that it was a total act of wimpishness on
the part of the government. Instead of enforcing the laws, it
simply reduced the price so the criminals would of their own
accord lose their profit motive and quit.
I am not certain whether the whole act of smoking should be
illegal. This is a question one really needs to ask. As long as
cigarette smoking is legal in the country it is incredible that
we should pass laws that would prevent a corporation from
advertising a product which is legal.
For example, we have people advertising certain foods. Maybe
looking at me sideways, Mr. Speaker, you can tell how much weight
I have lost. I have tried to say no to food lately. I do not
want to do any free advertising, but that slim trim diet is
working.
1320
There are many products which may be harmful, but we do not take
draconian measures to say they cannot be advertised. If the
government were really honest with Canadians, looking at the
scientific evidence about the harmful effects of smoking on
health, it would declare tobacco as a dangerous substance. Then
it would have moral and legal grounds for reducing and
restricting the advertising of the product. As long as it is a
fully legal product, from the point of view of freedom of
citizens and the freedom of companies to work in Canada, we have
to ask that question.
At the same time I recognize the vulnerability, especially of
young teens, to the pressures of advertising. As long as
advertisers are able to make a product look exciting and
youthful, as if all young people are doing it, as if all of our
heroes are doing the smoking thing, it will look attractive and
will draw more people in. I think that more people begin smoking
because of peer pressure than because of advertising. That is
just a guess that I am making.
Bill C-42 is an attempt to solve the problem or at least to
reduce the amount of smoking, by young people in particular. The
government is looking at a five year transition period on
restrictions to advertising. It has never been proven beyond a
shadow of a doubt that advertising causes people to take up the
habit of smoking, but this is what the government proposes to do.
This must be true confession time on nationwide television. I
have to blushingly admit to all people here and to anyone who
happens to be listening out there that I did at one time smoke a
cigarette.
An hon. member: Did you inhale?
Mr. Ken Epp: I don't remember. All I remember is that I
found a package of cigarettes that was not completely empty. Of
course I never spent my hard earned money on them. For some
reason I felt an obligation to try it. I did so all alone. I do
not believe I finished the cigarette that I took out of the
package because it caused me to cough and wheeze and choke.
Being a person who all my life had been somewhat given to an
intelligent process of thought and analysis, I stopped and said
this to myself: Self, I think this is stupid. It does not make
any sense at all to take into one's body that which the body by
natural means seems to so violently reject.
I do not think I finished that cigarette, although I do not
really recall. I am fairly old now and that probably happened
about 50 years ago. I do not recall what exactly happened, but I
do know that I made the decision that I would not smoke
cigarettes. It had nothing to do with advertising. It had
nothing to do with peer pressure. It had to do simply with an
intelligent decision. To this day I am very grateful that I made
that decision.
We should take account of the fact that tobacco companies make a
large amount of money. One of the ironies that I find in
government operations is that while on the one hand we are
talking about the increased costs of health, on the other hand we
are talking about the dangers to our young people and the need
for us to protect each other and ourselves from ourselves,
according to the Liberal government's philosophy.
1325
At the same time we are subsidizing and assisting farmers who
produce tobacco products. To be pushing and pulling on the same
object at the same time seems rather schizophrenic, to say the
least, and does not clearly show where one is headed. The
subject of assistance to the farmers who produce the product is a
whole subject for another day. It seems to me that we ought to
rationalize this and at least be consistent in the various arms
of government with respect to what we are trying to achieve.
I do not like to use the word hypocritical. I know that it is
against the rules to apply that term to any individual member of
parliament. I suppose that to collectively lay it on the feet of
the governing party today is on the verge of being incorrect.
But it is the only word that I really know. If we look at the
dictionary definition of hypocrite, from the root word it means
that you are wearing a mask. You are trying to pretend that you
are something you really are not. That is the definition of a
hypocrite. I hear the Liberal government say over and over that
it is concerned about the health of Canadians and that it is
concerned about the social impact of smoking, but at the same
time it pours resources into the production of the product. To
me that it is hypocritical. That is doing one thing with the
hands while the face and the mouth are trying to give a different
message.
I do not believe that we ought to approve this particular bill.
We should be opposing it because of its lack of clarity. It does
not show a clear direction in terms of where this government is
going on this particular issue. It does not, in my opinion, have
much hope of significantly changing what is happening in the
world of smoking these days.
What I would like to see more and more is a really solid
education component for all of our young people beginning in
junior high. This should include actual visits to hospitals. I
have heard of young people who had relatives who got lung cancer.
They had to visit those relatives. They saw how they were
breathing through a tracheal tube. They saw how they were unable
to speak because of throat cancer. They saw firsthand the
devastation. Although I am not proposing that we try to shock
our young people into an action or a decision, I believe that
should be a part of the education process. It should be a part
of the experience.
Why does the government not undertake to produce some films that
make some sense? Quite often we hear criticisms of the National
Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about some
of the garbage they produce using taxpayers' money. Why do they
not undertake to do a good, solid, medically based analysis on
film and make it available at a cost that school boards can
easily afford? Make it available to the school boards. Show it
to children. Maybe show it repeatedly to them. I would like to
include the health benefits of not smoking. I would like to
include the financial costs of taking up the habit versus
entering into a savings program. If all of the Liberal members
when they were youths had learned how to save money maybe we
would not have a $580 billion debt today.
We have to stop thinking that way. We need to start thinking in
terms of saving our money instead of spending it on a habit which
is statistically a proven killer.
I certainly urge the government to not promote this type of
action but to promote an action that will in reality affect our
habits. For goodness sake, let us stop subsidizing the production
of tobacco products.
1330
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, again I take great delight in listening to the the
Reform Party member speak about his trials and tribulations when
it comes to tobacco. Although I cannot verify the actuality of
it, the member mentioned subsidization for tobacco farmers. Every
time I hear that I think of the Stompin' Tom Connors song and
“my back still hurts when I hear that word, Tillsonburg”, a
great tobacco growing area.
Would the member and his party not agree that if that were so,
we would have to assist these farmers in the production of
another crop? Of course what is making the rounds these days and
becoming popular is industrialized hemp which is non-cannabis. It
would enable these farmers to grow an alternate crop which, as we
know, is very good for the environment and very useful in various
products such as paper and clothing. Would the hon. member not
agree that it would be an alternative for these farmers?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the government
has had a policy for a number of years, if not decades of
assisting farmers who want to make the transition out of
producing tobacco into producing other food crops. If the same
amount of money were made available, one could achieve the same
goal and help the taxpayer at the same time by phasing out the
subsidy for tobacco on a rational basis, perhaps cut it back 10%
to 15% per year until it is gone.
If we had a decent competitive marketing system, these farmers
should be able to thrive on the world markets with very superior
Canadian products which we are producing. Of course it would
include things like a wheat board which is accountable and which
allows some freedom for an individual farmer to grow and to sell
the crop of his or her choice.
With respect to the subsidization of farmers growing tobacco I
firmly believe that should be phased out relatively rapidly.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-42 is an act to amend the Tobacco Act to provide a five year
phased in transition period toward a total prohibition of tobacco
sponsorship promotions.
The original Tobacco Act was assented to in April 1997. I was
one of the members in the House at the time. I was pretty
appalled by what was being done because it just was not tough
enough even at that time. Here we are a year and a half
downstream and we are watering the whole thing down completely.
The interesting thing is that under the original Tobacco Act the
provisions were supposed to go into effect on October 1. I noted
last week when we were having a debate on this subject my
colleague from the NDP, the hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre, raised the question at the end of her speech about what
would happen if we had not passed this bill by October 1. To my
knowledge the government still has not answered that question.
I think any hon. person would think that until the bill is
passed, we really should be enforcing the provisions of the act
as it was passed before. I hope there are people taking steps to
do exactly that.
It seems to me that it is a little bit silly, stupid in fact,
for the government to continue to play fast and loose with the
health of Canadians on this issue when there is already a
shortage of money in the system for the sorts of diseases which
are caused by smoking and are well known to be caused by smoking,
such as heart disease and lung cancer. Everyone knows there is
simply not enough money in the system to treat these diseases
already.
In the meantime we have governments pandering to the tobacco
industry. Frankly, the average person cannot help but wonder how
many of these decisions are based actually on the very close
connections of the Prime Minister and the finance minister to
people in the tobacco industry.
1335
I asked a question of the finance minister in the House four
years ago because of his association, having been on the board of
directors of Imperial Tobacco. For my level of comfort there is
just a little bit too much of a close connection between the
major Liberals on the front bench and the people in the tobacco
industry. It is well known that the Prime Minister plays golf
with people from the tobacco industry.
While this government is busy playing fast and loose with
Canadians' health, other governments throughout the United States
and Canada are getting tough on the tobacco companies. In my own
province of B.C., our attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh just
recently announced, and I have a newspaper clipping here from
September 28, that B.C. was monitoring the U.S. lawsuits down in
Washington state against the tobacco companies with a view to
using the same argument in the lawsuit which B.C. has taken
against tobacco companies.
Of course the tobacco companies argue that they contribute a lot
to the coffers of the country in taxes and that is true. However,
the B.C. health minister on August 21 stated “It is no secret
that B.C. receives $483 million a year in taxes from cigarettes,
taxes that are paid by the consumers. This amount comes nowhere
near to covering the true costs to B.C.'s economy, an estimated
$1.3 billion a year, to pay for the direct and indirect health
and social costs paid by smokers and non-smokers alike”.
That is an enormous burden upon the taxpayers and upon the
health care system when we think of it. There really is no
excuse for pursuing this track of giving the cigarette companies
carte blanche to continue to advertise and promote their product.
In 1993 when I was first elected, the law that was in place and
which was subsequently struck down by challenge from the tobacco
companies restricted the advertising of tobacco at places of
sale. For example, corner stores could not put out signs
advertising cigarettes and neither could gas stations. I would
often get calls at my riding office. People who saw that a
tobacco advertisement had appeared on the sidewalk in front of a
corner store would call me. I was in a position to call the
owner of the store, explain the regulations and get that tobacco
advertising taken inside.
As we know, the tobacco companies were successful in striking
down those provisions. Subsequent to that, we now see the
proliferation of tobacco advertising on sidewalks and at gas
stations. There has absolutely been an increase in the amount of
smoking by young people since that time. It is beyond me
completely that the government can pursue a policy that results
in an increase in smoking by young people. It simply does not
make sense.
Tobacco of course is harmful in more ways than if we just smoke it. We
know of a certain high profile person who used a cigar for a most
unusual purpose. Then of course there is chewing tobacco, which
some people might choose to chew. There has been promotion of
this certainly at the corner stores in the Vancouver area. There
are display stands of chewing tobacco. There has been no
promotion of cigars yet for the purposes mentioned earlier, but
certainly chewing tobacco is on display. The advertisements make
it a sexy, really upbeat sort of yuppie thing to do to chew
tobacco. It is disgusting to see people spitting out their wads
of chewing tobacco on the sidewalks. It is well known that
chewing tobacco causes cancer of the mouth and the larynx.
This is simply moving the problem around within the human body.
We really should be moving toward the total banning of
advertising as suggested by the Canadian Cancer Society.
One of my colleagues from the PC Party last week read from a
letter from the Canadian Cancer Society. He talked about several
of the amendments and points that were suggested. It is
worthwhile reviewing some of those points. I will summarize the
points that came from the Canadian Cancer Society which said that
amendments were needed to this bill.
One, there should be a ceiling on tobacco company sponsorship
promotion expenditures during the delay period. In other words,
if we absolutely have to have this delay period, please put a
ceiling on the amount that the tobacco companies can spend so
they cannot just blow away the bank, get all the nice tax
deductions and get a whole bunch more young people addicted to
the habit.
Two, during the first two year delay period, sponsorship
promotion should be prohibited on the inside and outside of
stores where tobacco is sold.
That would take us back to before the 1995-96 era when there was
a prohibition on that type of advertising. It is a perfectly
reasonable request. It would not be imposing something that had
not already been there before.
1340
Three, the Canadian Cancer Society suggests that the bill should
be amended so that the two year and five year delay periods begin
on October 1, 1998, which was a few days ago, and end on October
1, 2000 and October 1, 2003, respectively.
At present the way it is set up cabinet can decide the starting
date. If the Prime Minister is out with one of his golfing
buddies and has a few extras at the 19th hole, he may decide that
he is going to delay the starting date indefinitely. Even
passage of this bill may mean that we never have the ban on
advertising that we are supposed to have.
Four, the bill should be amended so that only events sponsored
as of April 25, 1997 when the original bill was passed are
allowed to continue with tobacco sponsorship promotions during
the delay period. Why would that be a hardship? We have already
had the bill in place for a year and a half. Let us not expand
it. Let us try to keep it as contained as we possibly can.
Five, the bill should be amended so that the grandfather
provision applies only to events sponsored in Canada as of April
25, 1997. This again places a target date coincident with the
royal assent of the previous Tobacco Act.
Six, during the delay period, any sponsorship promotion should
not be allowed to contain images of people, to be misleading, or
to be conveyed through non-tobacco goods like T-shirts, baseball
caps and so on. In other words, let us keep the promotion to the
barest minimum instead of giving carte blanche approval for
tobacco companies to go hog wild, spending an absolute fortune in
the next couple of years with tax deductions and blowing their
budget promoting like crazy and getting as many people addicted
as they can.
Seven, the bill should be amended so that only international
auto racing events are able to have tobacco sponsorship during a
further delay period and not all sponsored events.
We already know that special interest groups have been able to
attract support from other companies than tobacco industries in
the last year in anticipation of the act coming into force on
October 1. It really is not necessary to maintain tobacco
sponsorship for all areas. It should be reduced significantly.
The Canadian Cancer Society has put a lot of thought into the
recommendations. I did not read out all the details. I know
this was read into the record last week. The Canadian Cancer
Society represents a very well-thought out position on this bill.
Its representatives obviously do not go golfing with the same
people as the Prime Minister does. And neither have they used
cigars for the purpose that other well-known person did. I would
urge this House to take note of the provisions suggested by the
Canadian Cancer Society.
Moving on and associated with this tobacco bill, a few years ago
we were trying to deal with the amount of tobacco smuggling that
was occurring. A lot of the criminal activity surrounding drugs,
tobacco and so on relates entirely to the porous nature of
Canada's borders. Our borders are so porous criminals can come
and go at any time they like.
By the attorney general's own admission, about 18,000 criminals
entered Canada last year under false documentation and were able
to carry on criminal activities which would have included
everything from the smuggling of tobacco, drugs and arms, to you
name it. We should be dealing with these really serious problems
rather than pandering to tobacco companies to allow them to make
profits over the next couple of years.
In the Vancouver area, the head of the fraud investigations at
Immigration Canada, Sergeant Rockwell, says that the problem of
passport fraud in the Vancouver area is mind boggling. He used
the term mind boggling. He estimates that the worst areas in the
country are North Vancouver, which is my own riding, Surrey and
Richmond. He estimates that the amount of passport fraud,
allowing criminals into our country, is so large in those three
areas that the communities have become blasé about it.
1345
Just yesterday the North Shore News, my local newspaper,
had a front page story saying it will no longer carry
advertisements of lost passports because for eight years now it
has been carrying advertisements of lost Iranian passports. It
identified them as Iranian passports. There have been three or
four per issue and there are three issues per week. We are
talking about 10 to 12 passports a week being advertised as lost
in North Vancouver.
The reason they are advertised as lost is those people
sell the passports complete with the T-1000 form, is a
landed immigrant form, so that they can be sent back to Iran to
have a new photograph put in them and somebody can come here as a
landed immigrant without any authority whatsoever.
Sgt. Rockwell tells me that on average these passports can go
around 10 times before they are picked up. When an illegal
immigrant comes in using a false passport, looking like a legal
landed immigrant, he goes immediately to the forger and sells the
passport again to recover some of the money he paid in Iran and
then the forger sends the passport back to Iran again so that
another photograph can be put in it and it can do the circuit one
more time.
This goes on up to 10 times before the passport is so damaged
that the immigration officials pick it up at the border. Then of
course they say let us check on this person whose name is in this
passport and on this T-1000 form. How did this passport get
here? They visit the person concerned who says they lost that
passport two years ago. It is advertised in the North Shore
News.
As I said, the North Shore News carried the story
yesterday. It will no longer advertise these passports lost
because it does not want to be party to this fraud.
Every single passport, it is right there in the story, that has
been advertised lost in North Vancouver in eight years was
Iranian. Does it not strike anyone in the immigration department
opposite a bit strange that in eight years the only people who
ever lose their passports are legally landed Iranian immigrants?
How strange. But in the meantime in Surrey it is mostly East
Indian passports that are advertised lost, and in Richmond it is
Chinese passports.
This immigration minister would do very well to start getting on
top of the problem because it is those people, those 18,000
people a year coming into this country as criminals, who are
getting involved in the sort of crime that smuggles tobacco that
ends up on the black market, pandering and catering to this
expansion of the use of tobacco that we talk about, getting our
young people hooked and increasing criminal activity in this
country.
It is a disgrace that while we spend time in this House, hours
and hours debating a piece of legislation to give tobacco
companies carte blanche to spend money, to get people on to their
addictive products, we have serious problems in Toronto, Montreal
and Vancouver of criminals every day getting into this country
through our porous borders with nothing we can do to stop them.
I am embarrassed that one of the main problem areas is my own
riding and that I have been unable to do anything about it, the
number of criminals, and that so easily it could be fixed.
All the immigration minister would have to do is make sure that
when a new immigrant like me becomes a Canadian citizen the
T-1000 form is taken out of the passport. That is all she needs
to do. It is so simple. As soon as that is done the forger's
power to send a genuine landed immigrant passport back to Iran,
India or China is taken away. That is all it would take.
But the minister says that for sentimental reasons we cannot do
that, we might upset somebody. They like to have the T-1000 form
in there. I say too bad. If somebody really has to have that
form in there they could have a photocopy with a big red stamp on
it saying invalid or something like to take care of the problem.
Really it comes down to political will.
1350
If there was political will to address the problem it would be
addressed. There is no political will on that side of the House
to address an appalling situation just as there is no political
will to address the appalling situation represented by this bill.
People can openly cause our young people to be addicted to
tobacco. Because of this, we know that in 20 or 30 years from
now there will be an increasing burden on our health care system
and a lack of productivity as they come out of the workforce and
have to be dealt with for heart disease and lung cancer that are
direct results of this addiction to tobacco.
As has been said many times before, I realize the sad fact that
in this place we know how the votes will turn out long before the
debates begin. In fact, everything said here is almost
irrelevant.
How sad that for all the work that was put into the
recommendations of the Canadian Cancer Society, here in a letter
to all MPs, not a word will be listened to, not one word will be
taken any notice of because we already know how the vote will
turn out on this bill. How appalling that those people on that
other side can sit there. I would say a goodly portion of them
are sorry that this bill is going to go through but they will
stand up and vote for it because they will not have the ability
to vote against it.
It is a shame to see the amount of work that has gone into this
by health professionals across the country, by people who can see
the dangers in the passage of this bill, to be rejected outright
by a dictatorial government that will force this issue through.
I will close with one last appeal to people here. If this would
be just the first time ever that they would seriously consider
this on the government side, please speak with the minister to
get her to hold this bill up just a bit longer so we can consider
it a bit more, so we can have the Canadian Cancer Society again,
so we can have concerned professionals here to convince us that
we should hold it off and incorporate many of the suggestions
they have made. I urge all members to vote against this bill.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this bill
is one I felt had weakened previous tobacco legislation.
I wondered if the member could make a comment on the fact that
the government collects $2,000 million in taxes from cigarettes
and has promised to spend $20 million per year on measures that
would reduce tobacco input by our youth; $2,000 million taken in
and $20 million per year promised for interdiction for our kids.
This year it looks like it has only spent $6 million.
I wonder if the member could make a comment about that in terms
of priorities.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, the member's question
actually relates to the statement I made earlier about the
statement made by the health minister in B.C. when she said that
B.C. receives about $480 million a year in taxes from cigarettes
but it costs about $1.3 billion in health care costs.
If that is applying in every province, the fact that the federal
government collects $2,000 million in taxes really becomes almost
irrelevant when one thinks of the enormous health costs which
would be several times that. If we used the same sorts of
proportions, we are talking about several billion dollars in
health care costs annually.
We know that tobacco still kills approximately three million
people a year worldwide. It is a major killer and we really
should not be facilitating the use of this product.
The Montreal Gazette had a story on August 30 concerning
this bill. It said let's say a kid smokes, fresh young lungs
headed for the long dirty road. Why a young person smokes may
involve a number of factors, to be part of a peer group,
rebellion against parents and authority figures, striving for
independence, the excitement of risk taking behaviour, weight
control, stress relief, and the list goes on.
1355
So what do you do about that? If parental guidance will not
work, if the slick guys at the ad agencies are a lot better at
selling cigarettes than selling clean living, how do we give our
young people a chance to avoid the kind of addiction that is
killing 40,000 Canadians a year?
We have to pour some money into contradicting the advertising of
the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies say they are not out
to entice young customers to replace the ones who are dying off.
I do not know how many exactly believe that, but they have said
publicly that they want to help discourage that very thing.
We may well laugh at that and I admit it makes me laugh but
there is a way of making those companies put their money where
their mouths pretend to be. I know that Bill S-13 has been
floating around this House and there has been a lot of support
for that type of approach.
The Government of Canada collects about $l,000 in tobacco taxes
for every dollar it puts into anti-tobacco initiatives. Frankly,
that is an insult. California's proposition 99 applied a 25 cent
tax to every package of cigarettes sold and used in California
and it used the money for inventive anti-tobacco programs. As a
result young persons and adult smoking in California has dropped.
It is a proven fact that where money has been put into
advertising that discourages smoking it works and it really is a
very sad commentary on the attitude of this government that it
would put such a small amount of money into contradicting the
tobacco advertising.
The Speaker: As it is almost 2 p.m. perhaps
we could get an extra statement or two in.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
PAT SINGLETON
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
celebrate women's history month I rise to pay tribute to Pat
Singleton, a woman of great energy, determination and community
spirit.
For more than 10 years Pat has been the executive director of
the Cambridge Self-Help Food Bank. Organizations like Nutrition
for Learning, the United Way, South Waterloo Housing, the Heart
and Stroke Foundation, the Cancer Society, Cambridge Interfaith,
the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Alzheimer Society,
Aids Awareness, International Women's Day and Kiwanis have all
benefitted from Pat's involvement.
In 1996 Pat was named volunteer of the year by the Brant County
Heart and Stroke and woman of the year by the Cambridge YWCA.
On behalf of the people of Cambridge riding I thank Pat for her
dedication to making our community a better place.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
again this year Canadian farmers have shown that they can produce
a big crop of high quality grain and oilseed. This year's crop
of over 23 million tonnes is high quality wheat, 80% of which
will be exported.
Canadian grain is recognized around the world for its quality.
Yet in spite of this impressive performance Canadian farmers are
facing a severe economic crisis. Commodity prices are at the
same levels they were some 30 years ago while crop inputs
continue to rise.
What is responsible for this serious deterioration in prices? We
do recognize the problems Southeast Asia has had and the impacts.
However, I believe the major reason for these low prices is due
to the massive subsidies by both the United States and the
European Union. These subsidies distort world markets by driving
down grain prices.
Farmers are asking what this government is going to do to
correct the situation. Where are the minister of agriculture and
the Minister for International Trade? What are they doing to
combat these big $50 billion export subsidies by the European
Union?
* * *
NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
this is national family week. This week we celebrate families
and recognize the family unit as a key foundation for a great
society.
This year's theme is family can be the greatest source of
comfort in the world. Throughout the week families across the
country will celebrate their own uniqueness, special qualities
and memories. When family life poses special challenges we can
strive to do our best and remember that we all have important
roles to play.
During national family week and throughout the entire year I
challenge communities, organizations, corporations, unions and
individuals to encourage the development of a family friendly
society. Let us work together in making national family week a
well celebrated event all across Canada.
* * *
1400
FAMILY SAVINGS AND CREDIT UNION
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Family Savings and Credit Union is kicking off its 50th
anniversary celebrations. It was on October 20, 1949 that this
financial institution was incorporated by a small number of
pioneers who joined together to own and control a financial
business to serve their needs.
Today the credit union boasts 22,000 members and six branches
across Niagara. It is the seventh largest credit union in
Ontario and offers financial planning and many other financial
services.
Over the years the Family Savings and Credit Union has been
honoured with several prestigious awards. It is one of only two
credit unions to be given the National Community Economic
Development Award. It has also received an international
marketing award from the Credit Union Executives Society.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Family Savings and
Credit Union on 50 years of success and for serving the people of
St. Catharines and Niagara.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to
draw attention to the great success of the 1998 International
Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show in my riding of
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
I congratulate Chairman Ken Keyes and his army of volunteers,
all of whom did a fantastic job hosting this prestigious event. I
personally thank all the hundreds of volunteers. Many were the
same citizens who gave so much of themselves during the ice storm
crisis earlier this year.
The 100,000-plus visitors and participants, including more than
15,000 students, were witnesses to the event's theme “Quality
Living/A Partnership”. The good will and hospitality of the
people of Frontenac and surrounding counties exemplified this
spirit.
In addition to the great plowing competitions there were the
tented city built on this theme and exhibits and events
showcasing our culture, history and innovations for a better
future. I am confident that all visitors brought home a good
feeling from our area and from this event.
* * *
FORESTRY
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, seven Reform MPs spent the weekend on B.C.'s central
coast visiting logging operations and talking with forest workers
and community leaders. We were impressed with progressive
attitudes and careful forest practices. They are determined to
practise and promote sustainable forestry to ensure the viability
of their communities.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace is launching a million dollar campaign to
promote an international boycott of B.C. forest products. This
misinformation campaign is trying to put B.C. forest workers,
their families and their communities on the welfare rolls.
The great irony is that Greenpeace is at the same time asking
for charitable status. The federal government must say no to
this request, counter this campaign and send a strong statement
to the international community defending and promoting B.C. and
Canadian forest practices.
* * *
[Translation]
TV5 INTERNATIONAL NETWORK
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ministers responsible for TV5, including the
Minister for Canadian Heritage, met yesterday in Quebec City to
discuss issues relating to the future of this very important
television network.
Founded in 1984, TV5 is one of the world's leading satellite
broadcasting networks and can reach nearly 68 million homes.
This year, we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of TV5 Québec
Canada.
More than a mere celebration, it is the realization that TV5
Québec Canada is becoming more and more important not only
across this continent but also throughout the Francophonie.
TV5 is a new milestone in the cultural development of
French-speaking countries and one of the Francophonie's greatest
accomplishments. The Government of Canada supports the crucial
role that our international network, TV5, plays and must
continue to play.
* * *
ALAIN BELLERIVE
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
acknowledge the efforts and many years of consistent work by
Alain Bellerive, of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, a doctor in particle
physics whose thesis has earned him a two-year contract with the
European centre for particle physics research, the CERN, in
Geneva. This centre brings together the finest scholars in the
world.
Speaking personally and on behalf of the residents of my riding
of Champlain, I want him to know how proud we are of him.
Dr. Bellerive, 28, completed six years of advanced studies and
is now employed with the leading international laboratory for
research in particle physics.
This young physicist dreams of coming home to perform similar
duties in a Canadian or Quebec university.
Alain, I wish you the best of luck and I hope your dream will
come true.
* * *
1405
[English]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take this opportunity to commend one of the smaller communities
in my riding of Nunavut on it initiative and action.
The residents of Whale Cove, numbering just over 300, are
speaking out about violence against women. More than 50
concerned people marched the roads of Whale Cove to create
awareness of the issue, carrying posters that were made by
children. This is a fine example of what can be done if the
community as a whole takes on an issue.
What makes this action even more notable is Whale Cove does not
have the protective services of the RCMP. It is served by the
detachment in Rankin Inlet 100 kilometres away. Sometimes Whale
Cove has to wait for a response to its calls, depending on the
seriousness of the situation.
We have to stop violence against women, and I am proud that even
the small communities in Nunavut are taking a stand against this
terrible crime in society.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada pension plan is a key pillar of retirement
income for many Canadians.
To head off an approaching fiscal crisis in the plan the Liberal
government is increasing payroll taxes by 73%. Many interested
parties including the Alberta Chamber of Commerce are convinced
the CPP should include an option to invest mandatory
contributions into individual retirement savings plans.
At a media conference scheduled for later today I understand the
Alberta Chamber of Commerce will call on the Alberta government
to immediately commit to a provincial consultative process on
options to the CPP.
An increasing percentage of the population is losing faith in
the CPP and want the option of opting out in favour of their own
mandatory retirement savings account, an option Reform has
proposed.
* * *
[Translation]
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ever since it
arrived here, the Bloc Quebecois has been claiming to speak on
behalf of the people it represents.
This means that, each time the separatists ask questions in the
House, make speeches and, in particular, hold press conferences,
they are expected to reflect the views of their constituents.
But today, the truth is coming out once again.
I want to congratulate the member for Rimouski—Mitis. According
to yesterday's edition of Le Soleil, the member held a
consultation in her riding. She sent 2,000 questionnaires to
find out what should be done with the employment insurance
surpluses. She got 787 replies.
The people of Rimouski—Mitis want the surpluses to be invested in
health and education and used to reduce personal income taxes,
instead of lowering employment insurance premiums and corporate
taxes.
I do hope the member's comments will reflect these results and
that she will correct her leader, unless this is yet another
case where they have to consult the head office in Quebec City.
* * *
[English]
TOMMY DOUGLAS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am sure many Canadians share my outrage at the pathetic way in
which the Prime Minister used the name of Tommy Douglas against
the member for Palliser.
If Tommy were here he would be foursquare behind the member for
Palliser and everyone else who is challenging the longstanding
tendency of Liberal governments to trample on the rights of
Canadians when it suits them.
It was Tommy Douglas who stood up to the Liberals over the War
Measures Act in 1970. Those of us who regard Tommy as our mentor
stand up now against the arrogance and the undemocratic spirit
that pervade the government from its handling of APEC to the many
other ways in which it seeks to crush dissent within its own
ranks and within the country.
The Prime Minister should spend less time misusing the name of
those who cannot defend themselves and more time learning from
the example of people like Tommy Douglas.
* * *
COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER WEEK
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this week is Community Newspaper Week. Whether in one part of an
urban setting or the voice of a rural township, community
newspapers give a voice to individuals and to the associations
working to build Canada.
These local papers enrich our communities by highlighting
achievements of local residents and provide a forum for
discussion leading to action.
[Translation]
I am very aware that the local newspapers in my riding play an
essential role in keeping the community informed and united. I
am thinking, among others, of the Stanstead Journal, the Progrès
de Coaticook, the Reflet du Lac, and the Haut St-François.
[English]
Let us take a moment to acknowledge the men and women who
report, edit, lay out the pages, solicit advertising and manage
the distribution of news that is closest to home.
1410
[Translation]
Each newspaper is unique, as is the community that it
represents. Together, they make a major contribution to the
vitality of the Canadian community.
* * *
[English]
MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that October 4 to
October 10, 1998 is Mental Illness Awareness Week.
This public education campaign was launched in 1992 to
de-stigmatize mental illness. It is spearheaded by the Canadian
Psychiatric Association in partnership with the Depression and
Manic Depression Association of Canada, the Schizophrenia Society
of Canada, the Canadian Mental Health Association and the
National Network for Mental Health.
Serious mental illnesses such as major depression involve
substantial personal and socioeconomic costs.
[Translation]
These diseases can have disastrous effects on those affected, as
well as on their relatives and friends.
[English]
Mental Illness Awareness Week provides an opportunity for
Canadians to increase awareness and understanding of mental
illness and to overcome the stigma too often faced by persons
with mental illness.
I ask the House to join me in saluting the efforts of the
organizers of this event and lend support to this important
initiative.
* * *
MUSEUMS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the poem I am about to read was written by my wife and
is dedicated to the thousands of volunteers across Canada who
give their time and their money to keep our small community
museums open.
It is called “Keepers of the Past”.
In many a village, city or town
There's a spot reserved where records are put down
It may have been a church or a school or a hall
Now, it houses memories and bits of history for recall.
Treasured possessions preserved through the years
In this hallowed place, ably manned by volunteers
Dusty antiques, all rusty and old
Tin type photos with a story to be told.
Keepers of the past—a rich heritage
For generations to come, of a more modern age
Community pride—of this I can attest
For Souris—Moose Mountain has some of the best.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, “we
must grant that recognition”. Those are the words used a few
days ago by the secretary general of the United Nations, when he
commented on the will of Quebeckers to achieve sovereignty.
Mr. Annan said that, following a decision made by a clear
majority of Quebeckers to form their own country, and following
a democratic consultation, Quebec would have to be recognized.
Our new country would finally be a full fledged member of the
international community.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to inform the member states of the
United Nations that it intends to fight democratically to
obtain, in a future referendum, the clear majority referred to
by the secretary general, and that it will behave in the most
appropriate of ways before, during and after the next winning
referendum in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
according to StatsCan farm cash receipts in western Canada are
down drastically in 1998. In 1997 net farm income fell 55%
nationally.
Farmers have started to draw money from their net income
stabilization account. For the six months of 1998 NISA
withdrawals increased by nearly 70%. Most farmers will not be
able to face the current market crisis.
Of greater concern is that while governments of our major
competitors, the EU and the U.S., declare that they will help
their farmers go through this crisis our government is not
reacting to our problems.
Since 1993 federal and provincial government support has dropped
60%. Farmers want a long term commitment from the government and
the government must react now.
* * *
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased and proud to bring the news to the House that today
Canada was elected to serve a two year term on the United Nations
Security Council. This will be the sixth time Canada has been so
honoured with a security council seat. It is tremendous
recognition by the United Nations membership of Canada's
longstanding role in promoting peace and security worldwide.
For generations Canada has been an active player through our
extensive participation in peacekeeping missions and through our
strong support for multilateral institutions.
Canada's involvement in the UN is a reflection of fundamental
Canadian values like freedom, equality, democracy, tolerance,
negotiation and compromise.
We bring our values and convictions to the security council
table, but we also bring our willingness to make the tough
decisions needed to ensure peace and security around the globe.
1415
The record speaks for itself. The world community values our
contribution. A special word of thanks to our Minister of
Foreign Affairs, special envoys and those in the diplomatic
corps, without whose efforts our bid for this seat might not have
been successful.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
APEC SUMMIT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that was the good news. Now the bad news. Within the last hour
the lawyer for the students represented at the APEC hearings has
filed a motion to kill the commission because of the solicitor
general's conversation about the commission, how he compromised
that system which he so piously defended.
When is the government going to ask the solicitor general to
resign his place in cabinet?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): I am
surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member did not get up to
congratulate the government on Canada's overwhelming election to
the security council.
The hon. member shows a very misguided sense of priorities in
her question. There is no doubt that the minister is an
outstanding minister who has the confidence of the Prime
Minister, the government and our entire caucus.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): That is great,
Mr. Speaker. He may have the confidence of the benches on the
other side but certainly not the Canadian people.
The commission is going to hear this motion on Tuesday. It will
be before the commission. The member for Palliser is going to
appear and testify under oath about the conversation he heard on
the plane between the solicitor general and his buddy Fred Toole.
I would like to ask the solicitor general now, after all the
clapping and the cheering on that side, will he stand up right
now and say he will testify under oath, yes or no?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said in the House many times, the invitation as to
who is going to participate in these hearings is at the
discretion of the public complaints commission.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Of course, Mr.
Speaker, there is a motion on the floor of that place to kill the
commission because he has poisoned that process so badly.
Now the premier of New Brunswick has come forward and
corroborated the story of the member for Palliser. This is
getting more serious by the day. The government cannot have it
both ways. It cannot cherry pick. It has already acknowledged
that the member for Palliser has it right.
The minister can run from the truth but he cannot hide from the
facts. The solicitor general has compromised his office, he has
undermined the commission and he has refused to testify under
oath. So there is only one question left. When will he resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this line of questioning is based on a despicable act of
eavesdropping, unworthy of this place and offensive to fair
minded Canadians.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In jurisprudence there is an expression, notes taken at the
time. In trials judges regularly ask police officers to refer to
their notes made at the time to refresh their memories and these
are considered admissible as evidence.
The information released by the member for Palliser regarding
the solicitor general's conversation is from notes made at the
time.
Can the justice minister, as chief attorney, tell the House how
the solicitor general can claim some of these notes are true and
some are false?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have had a chance to glance at copies of the hon.
member for Palliser's notes. I want to say those chicken
scratches show the hon. member is certainly not a certified
shorthand reporter.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, these notes have been taken as evidence by the
public complaints commission in Vancouver.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said: “I cannot have a better
witness than the member for Palliser”.
The notes are before a public complaints commission the
solicitor general oversees. We cannot have the chief officer of
that commission sitting as solicitor general while notes that are
saying he did something against that commission are before the
commission and under investigation.
Will the Prime Minister have the solicitor general resign until
this commission is over with?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the law is clear, a law brought into this parliament by
a party the hon. member used to be affiliated with, that this
commission is at arm's length from the minister and at arm's
length from the government. It is an independent body. It wants
to do its work. I do not know why the hon. member wants to use
the floor of the House of Commons to impede the commission from
carrying out the work it has been given by a law passed by this
parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general is trying to convince us that what he said in
a plane was not serious because the conversation was in private.
Is he telling us that he is perfectly entitled to discuss
affairs of state with just anybody, anywhere, so long as he does
so in private and there are not too many people around to hear.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Solicitor General of Canada, I am very proud of
the correctional service and the RCMP. I have discussions all
the time about the pride that I feel for those organizations and
the work they do. I will continue to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general is very proud of himself and the Liberals are
very proud of him. They are the only people in Canada who are
very proud of him.
Since we started questioning him on the APEC scandal, the
solicitor general has said he cannot comment in this House,
because the scandal is before a commission of inquiry.
What principle gives the solicitor general the right to talk to
his Liberal friends about the APEC scandal, while he refuses to
discuss it here in this House before members of parliament, as
it is his duty and responsibility to do?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, quite the contrary. Many times in the House I have
discussed my faith in the public complaints commission and how
important that instrument is as a civilian oversight instrument.
I discuss it regularly. I believe in the process and I wish
members would let it work.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said yesterday that, had the solicitor general spoken
of the Airbus affair in the plane, he would have dealt
differently with him.
Could the Prime Minister explain why discussion of the Airbus
scandal is serious enough to warrant dismissing the minister,
while discussion of the APEC matter, which is also under
investigation, is not serious and he will do nothing? Why the
double standard?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times, I did not discuss anything
inappropriate. That has been substantiated by the gentleman who
sat beside me.
I talked about the public complaints commission and that I had
all the faith in the world in that commission, and I have.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can it
be that a minister who does not know better than to talk about
his business in public could have sufficient judgement to know
that what he said can be prejudicial to an inquiry?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would never say anything that would be prejudicial to
the process or to an ongoing investigation.
I can speak very proudly of the civilian oversight history in
this country. The public complaints commission is a part of
that, I support that commission and I wish members would let it
do its work.
1425
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in this House both the Prime Minister and the solicitor general
accused me of fabricating my story.
I stand in my place today to tell this House and the Canadian
people I swear now that I am telling the truth. I would swear
under oath that I am telling the truth. The solicitor general,
better than anyone else, knows what happened.
Will he now withdraw his allegation?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary. The member for Palliser made serious
allegations based on his eavesdropping on a private conversation
on a noisy aircraft.
That report has been discredited. I denied those allegations
with the support of the person to whom I was speaking. I think
it is reprehensible that an hon. member would stoop to this kind
of tactic.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, far more
in sadness than in anger I say that the solicitor general
continues to question my honesty.
I give the minister one more chance to withdraw these
allegations, or is he calling me a liar?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question as put is in order.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the hon. member has taken snippets of a
conversation that he eavesdropped on and put them together as
facts.
There are many inaccuracies in that report. He suggested
I had said something that would prejudice the process or
outcome of the public complaints commission.
It has been established by the person sitting beside me that was
not the case. I stand by my story.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, when it
suits the Prime Minister he likes to use the words of the member
for Palliser to defend the solicitor general. The member for
Palliser is reported as saying: “The solicitor general lied in
the House of Commons”.
The Speaker: Colleagues, we are not allowed to use words
in this House used by someone else outside the House that we
ourselves are not allowed to use. I want the hon. member to
withdraw that statement and I would like her to go directly to
her question, please.
1430
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw and I will
go directly to the question.
Why has the solicitor general not taken the very action the
Prime Minister has threatened to take in the past if the
statements made by the member for Palliser are not true? Is it
because the solicitor general's friend, Fred Toole, would not be
able to corroborate the solicitor general's version of the
remarks he made about APEC under oath?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the member for Palliser alleged that I had
said something that would compromise the Public Complaints
Commission exercise both by way of process and by way of the
outcome, and I denied that. That denial has been substantiated
by the person with whom I was speaking on the airplane.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, only the
solicitor general and the Prime Minister believe the solicitor
general's changing versions of his APEC chat in the air. They
use the statements made by the member for Palliser to defend the
solicitor general when it suits them and deny or refuse to
confirm other statements when it does not.
Why will the Prime Minister not stop letting the solicitor
general undermine that office and the smidgen of integrity that
is left in this government and ask the solicitor general to
resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to reiterate that the Prime Minister, the
government and the caucus have confidence in the minister. He is
a fine minister and he is doing a good job.
I guess the hon. member does not care about veterans any more.
What happened to her priority with respect to veterans? What
happened to her party's concern about the economy? Is that all
she has to talk about is this issue, which has been more than
adequately and effectively answered by the solicitor general?
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister stood in his place and said “I
could not have a better witness than the member for Palliser”.
He then said that he was nothing but a snoop and tried to
discredit him.
Today I think the Prime Minister should change his mind one more
time. Will he change his mind and now ask for the resignation of
the solicitor general?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to reiterate that the Prime Minister has no
intention of doing that. I know there is a new unholy alliance
between the Reform Party and the other right wing parties, the
Conservatives and the NDP, but that does not make what they are
saying right.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Palliser stood in this place and vowed that he would
swear under oath to the veracity of his statements.
The solicitor general has not denied the statements and will not
testify under oath. Meanwhile the lawyer for the students has
said that the testimony of the solicitor general has compromised
the commission and is asking for it to be shut down.
Will the solicitor general do the right thing, realize he has
compromised his position as well as the commission's and resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the situation here is extremely clear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I could not have imagined
that in this country the principles of fundamental justice could
be parked so eagerly in the interest of political theatre.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the only thing
that is perfectly clear in this matter is that the version given
by the Solicitor General, who is trying to save his skin,
contradicts the version of the hon. member, who has nothing to
gain except bringing out the truth.
How—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
1435
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is the
minister responsible for internal security. He is the one
responsible for state secrets. The portfolio is so different
from the others that newly appointed Solicitors General are
given more training about security than other ministers.
How can the man responsible for security in Canada not
understand that the words he spoke, as reported by the hon.
member, are unseemly and incompatible with his position?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand my responsibilities very well and I live by
them proudly.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the
Deputy Prime Minister was Solicitor General, he never got into
such a situation because he understood he needed to keep his
mouth shut. That is what Solicitors General have to learn, and
this one did not.
Someone from a foreign power, someone with an interest in
getting some information on Canada, could have been the one
sitting close to the Solicitor General on that plane, so what he
was saying did constitute a risk to national security. How can
a man in charge of national security behave in such a way as to
endanger the—
The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General.
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the allegations made against me in terms of
inappropriately speaking about the Public Complaints Commission
by way of process or outcome have been denied. That denial has
been substantiated by the gentleman with whom I was speaking
directly, not an aisle and a half away.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister said one day “When confidence is lost, the system
no longer works”. How things change after five years in office.
Canadians no longer have confidence in the Solicitor General,
who is still with us. Why is the government not keeping its
word?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear what is happening. Members opposite
have embraced inaccurate observations, snippets from a very noisy
aircraft that have been put together as truth.
There are many inaccuracies in these statements, including in my
own constituency the name of the St. Mary's First Nation. It
turned up across an aisle as St. Michael's. That is just an
example.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the syndrome
called recovered memory syndrome was largely discredited in
medical circles.
The solicitor general's sudden recovery of memory has actually
discredited him, both in this House and through the rest of the
country.
Which one of this cabinet will stand up and finally say “We are
going to fire the flyer”?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to see from the hon. member's question that he
is now satisfied with the government's approach to the tragedy of
hep C victims.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General. The Prime Minister has
claimed that the remarks of his minister have no impact on the
commission of inquiry. They caused RCMP officials to say in
Vancouver yesterday that they were not prepared to take the
blame for anyone else in the Peppergate scandal.
Can the Solicitor General not see that his chats are far from
neutral, that they are having serious repercussions for the
inquiry and that he must really step down?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the House on Tuesday I advised that the allegations
made against me were not accurate. My statement on Tuesday was
supported by the gentleman who was sitting beside me on the
plane, with whom I was having a private conversation, not
somebody eight feet away, a seat and an aisle away, on a noisy
plane.
1440
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General must realize that since his chat in the plane,
the RCMP is in a state, secret agents are giving interviews and
the media talks of nothing else, from coast to coast.
What does it take to get the Solicitor General to do what duty
requires he do—resign?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think anyone in this country would want the
government to make decisions based on inaccurate information.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in this government when cabinet ministers are having
problems—and yes, we do have a cabinet minister with a problem,
and we have been at it all week—the Prime Minister usually will
not allow the minister to resign. The Prime Minister usually
waits until he can shuffle the cabinet minister out the back
door.
Instead of waiting for the next cabinet shuffle, why will the
Prime Minister not just let the solicitor general do the
honourable thing and resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he has confidence in
the solicitor general and that he is doing a fine job. There is
no reason the Prime Minister should follow the precedent of the
Leader of the Opposition and kick people out of the caucus
completely or sentence them to the back row because he does not
like the way they are disagreeing with him. That is no precedent
for this party or for anybody else in this House.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in his
idealistic youth as Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said:
“Integrity and honesty are the cornerstones of this
government”. That was 1996—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Will the Deputy Prime Minister now
prove that statement and fire the solicitor general?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the rather uncharacteristic endorsement of
the Prime Minister's policies by the hon. Reform member. It is
because of the Prime Minister's daily proof of commitment to
these policies that he is not going to follow the unwarranted
advice of the Reform Party or any other opposition party in this
matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Solicitor General.
Since the Solicitor General has demonstrated his flagrant lack
of judgment to all, since he has failed to convince anyone other
than perhaps his Liberal colleagues of his version of the facts,
since his arguments do not stand up to those of the member for
Palliser, will he, in a flash of lucidity, submit his
resignation right now?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday in this House I denied the allegations that
were made with regard to the process of the Public Complaints
Commission or its outcome. That denial was substantiated by the
gentleman with whom I was speaking on the aircraft at that time
and not by someone a seat and an aisle away.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
people of Ontario were justifiably outraged recently when the
Government of Ontario lowered the minimum age for hunting with a
firearm to 12. As soon as the reformatories realized this was a
terrible mistake they blamed the federal government.
Would the Minister of Justice please give this House and the
solicitor general for Ontario an elementary lesson in
jurisdiction between governments?
1445
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important issue. It is an issue that has been of concern to the
people of Ontario.
I want to clarify for all members in this House and the people
of Ontario that in fact the law surrounding hunting, who hunts
and the age at which one can apply for a permit to hunt, is in
fact within exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
I want to reassure this House and the people of Ontario that
this government had no part in the decision made by the
Government of Ontario to permit 12 year olds to apply for hunting
licences.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general, the guardian of this nation's
most sensitive information, has loose lips. His loose lips
violated the elementary rule of policing, that you only release
information on a need to know basis. As a former RCMP officer,
the nation's top cop is a major security risk because he cannot
follow this rule. When will the Prime Minister ask the minister
for his resignation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's
question regarding the way the hon. solicitor general has carried
out his duties. He is a fine minister and he deserves the
support of all members of this House.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general has lost the confidence of this House. He has
lost the confidence of Canadians. He should be gone today, not
in the next cabinet shuffle. If fingering your employees will
not do it, if jeopardizing ongoing investigations will not do it,
what will do it? How low does the bar have to go, Mr. Prime
Minister?
The Speaker: I remind members to please address
your questions to the Chair.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this line of questioning is based on a despicable tactic
of eavesdropping. The results of that exercise have been
discredited in fact. I would not want to think that Canadians
would see this government making decisions based on that kind of
inaccurate information.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in his notes the member for Palliser wrote that the solicitor
general said he was going to have an international college of
correctional studies built in Fredericton. Yet an aide to the
minister said that could not be because the only site that was
being considered was Kingston. Now we have the premier of New
Brunswick, Mr. Thériault, saying that he discussed this several
times with the solicitor general and credited the solicitor
general with working hard on the file.
Is the premier of New Brunswick fabricating a story, or do we
now know very clearly where the fabrication is coming from?
1450
The Speaker: Colleagues, yesterday I permitted the word
fabricated or fabrication to be used in the House but I would
much prefer that you do not use that word in this question
period. I am going to allow the solicitor general to answer the
question, but I do not want the word fabricated used.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again as I said earlier, the story that was put
forward by the hon. member for Palliser was drawn from snippets
of words coming across the aircraft. As a consequence the hon.
member has mentioned the facility. Unfortunately he got the
location wrong and there was another different project that I
have been working on in the province with the premier and that is
the basis of the mistake.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, there comes a time in these kinds of affairs when a
cabinet minister knows that he is a liability to the process no
matter what he believes to be true about himself. The minister
has arrived at that point. Whatever he believes about himself he
should see clearly that he is now a liability to the process
going on in Vancouver and he should do the right thing and
resign.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have more respect for fundamental justice than to do
that.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the Prime Minister accepted the resignation
of the member for Don Valley East when he breached the
government's supposed ethical standards.
Yesterday the solicitor general admitted to discussing the
location for the centre for correctional justice, a cabinet
decision that could lead to a commercial advantage to insider
information from the solicitor general.
Will the Prime Minister please explain why the member for Don
Valley East lost his cabinet position and the solicitor general
keeps his? Why the double standard?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no double standard here except in the hon.
member's own mind.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there are double standards around here lately.
The solicitor general needs to be one of the most discreet and
security conscious members of the cabinet, as does the Minister
of Justice. He needs to be trusted by our police, our
intelligence, agents and our allies. In one conversation the
solicitor general destroyed that trust. He spoke of APEC, Frank
Moores and a pork barrel project in his riding. He cannot
separate the private from the public.
This is inappropriate behaviour on his part. It is a firing
offence. When will the solicitor general resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, serious allegations were made. I stood in the House. I
responded to those allegations. They were inaccurate. I
established that the gentleman whom I was speaking with
substantiated that those allegations were inaccurate.
I do not feel any obligation to discuss a private conversation
that has nothing inappropriate with regard to my job, that was
overheard on an aircraft by an eavesdropper.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In light of the rising tension between Turkey and Syria, would
the minister explain to the House what diplomatic efforts Canada
is making to defuse the increasingly dangerous situation that
could have lasting implications for peace in the Middle East and
Asia Minor?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the
member as I could not understand the beginning of his question.
Mr. Speaker, would you allow the member to repeat the question?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1455
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary
Northeast.
* * *
APEC SUMMIT
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe I missed the punchline on that last commercial from that
side.
I have a question for the top police officer in the country, the
chief administrator of law enforcement. I want to check the facts
on this letter.
Mr. Toole's letter does not corroborate the solicitor general's
story. The letter is very carefully and legally crafted by a
lawyer to say nothing.
My question for the solicitor general is, is he calling the member
for Palliser a liar?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question as it is put is in order.
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unlike my hon. colleague from Palliser, I would never
question someone's honesty. I am simply questioning the accuracy of his
hearing.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Solicitor General.
In the light of all these events, will the Solicitor General not
now acknowledge that it is time to bow out, with dignity?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the solicitor general.
I have heard the solicitor general say many times in this place that
he really believes in the process, he believes in the commission,
he cares about that commission and its process. I ask him now
does he not see that regardless of what he thinks about the
matter, he now has a duty to absent himself from this in the name
of the work of the commission and the confidence that Canadian
people have to have in that process?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe profoundly in fundamental justice. I think it
is being convoluted in this place to impugn my integrity. In the
name of my integrity, I remain the Solicitor General of Canada.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
CBC this morning is reporting that New Brunswick Premier Camille
Thériault had full knowledge of a correctional college to be
built in New Brunswick, the same correctional college that the
member for Palliser overheard the solicitor general discussing on
a very public plane.
The member for Palliser could not make this up. In fact, he
heard all too well the solicitor general breaking secrets in
public. Will the solicitor general not do the honourable thing?
Will he recognize his error in judgment? Will he resign?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I never suggested that he made it up. He just got it
wrong.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In light of the rising tension between Turkey and Syria, will
the minister explain to the House what diplomatic efforts Canada
is making to defuse this increasingly dangerous situation that
could have lasting implications for peace in the Middle East and
Asia Minor?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for asking the question again. There is a little bit of noise coming
from the other side, Mr. Speaker, and it becomes rather confusing for
a neophyte parliamentary secretary.
Turkey has been concerned in the past by the incursions by the
PKK, the workers party, into Turkey.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I think I better quit while I am ahead and
draw to conclusion today's question period.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of members the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Festus Mogai, President
of the Republic of Botswana and a delegation from his country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
given what went on here today, I do not suppose there is any
great question I could ask, but I would like to ask the
government House leader the nature of the business in the House
of Commons for the remainder of this week and for the next time
we sit.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the business of the House of
Commons for today and tomorrow will be Bill C-42, the tobacco
legislation, and Bill C-40, the extradition legislation.
It would not be my intention at this point to call other
government business before the adjournment tomorrow.
Next week is the Thanksgiving break. When we return we will
commence with Bill C-54, the electronic commerce bill. This will
be followed by the resumption of consideration of Bill C-43, the
revenue agency bill. Tuesday, October 20 shall be an allotted
day.
I take this opportunity to wish all members an excellent
Thanksgiving holiday and hope that everyone will come back here
reinvigorated with the best interests of the nation at heart.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
MEMBER FOR BOURASSA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I rise on a point of
order, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier this afternoon, in his statement, the member for
Bourassa misled the House. I never asked the voters in the
riding of Rimouski—Mitis what they wanted us to do with the
surpluses in the employment insurance fund.
What I asked, and I am prepared to table the text of the
question, is—
1505
The Speaker: Sometimes, when members are making statements,
they quote facts that can be taken in several ways. If I
understand correctly, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis is
seeking unanimous consent to table an document. Is that correct?
[English]
Does the hon. member have the permission of the House to table
the document?
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and
means motion respecting the Excise Tax Act and I am also tabling
explanatory notes.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does
the hon. member not need the unanimous consent of the House to do
that outside the regular debate session?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Standing Order 83(1):
states:
A notice of Ways and Means motion may be laid upon the Table of
the House at any time during a sitting by a Minister of the
Crown, but such a motion may not be proposed in the same sitting.
As long as it is being laid on the table and not proposed, we
are all right.
* * *
TOBACCO ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, an
act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the start of
question period the hon. member for Vancouver North had six
minutes left in questions and comments. However, I believe we
will be resuming debate.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to rise and speak to Bill C-42.
This bill is very close to me at this time.
It is a one that is affecting my family right now. It is a bill
that has affected my family in the past.
1510
I really wish that every member of the government was in their
place right now to examine what they are about to do with this
bill. This five year phase-in on tobacco advertising will
probably kill thousands of people and start thousands of more
teenagers into an addiction habit.
If members opposite and those who want to support this bill
would just sit for a moment. Never mind the tobacco tax they are
going to receive because they are going to lose all of it in
extra health care. Never mind the grant they are going to get or
political patronage from the tobacco companies. Let us just sit
down for a moment this afternoon and ask ourselves is it worth
it. Is it worth it to see thousands of young people become
addicted to the still massive advertising of the tobacco
companies? The bill should not be phased in over five years. The
bill should come in now and everybody in the House would support
it.
My colleague from Elk Island did not want to use the word
hypocrisy. I have to use that word for this reason. When the
government was faced with massive smuggling, what did it do?
Instead of dealing with the smuggling, it said to the teenagers
of Ontario and Quebec mainly we are going to drop the tax, we are
going to lower the price of cigarettes, go ahead and smoke, you
will not have to work a full hour on the lowest pay scale for one
package of cigarettes, you can now get two or three packages. So
the in thing was to smoke.
The government created the highest teenage level of smoking in
Canada in years by its inability to look at an issue and say we
are going to put our money into stopping the smuggling of
cigarettes back into Canada. It did not want to do that. It
created a double standard. The rule of law did not apply in
Canada.
In Dryden, Ontario people could buy cigarettes for less than
half of what they could a few miles away in Manitoba. The
government continues to justify that.
I agree with the hon. member that we should have an educational
program, taking all the money, all the revenue and putting
programs into our schools.
Let me tell members about an incident in my life. My brother
was 49 years old. I was 35 miles out of the office when the call
came to go back to the office. The message was that a 49 year
old prince of a man had just died of lung cancer. Today I have
another family member who is in serious trouble health wise.
Just think how many people in the next five years are going to
become addicted because the government has more concerns about
the filthy lucre it is going to get and the political patronage
grants it is going to get from the tobacco companies than to face
this issue square on. Think about it.
The government failed to recognize what the cancer societies
said. It failed to recognize what the Health Association of
Canada said. No, the government has to do it its way.
I sat in on a lung operation. I sat in on a smoker's lung being
removed. A high tech camera should show that picture in every
high school classroom in this country. Watch them take out a
gross lung, completely ruined by tar and nicotine.
Here we have a bill that is not going to curb but will be phased
in.
1515
Knowing the record of the government, it will never get truly
phased in as long as there is kick-in under the table on
political patronage and grants. All people in Canada know that.
The Canadian Cancer Society knows it. Members on the government
side know it and all hon. members know it.
Tobacco has many defenders but, no matter what, nobody can come
up with a defence.
Immediately the government has shied away from what it promised.
This is not what it promised. It promised it would bring about
an immediate change in encouraging the use of tobacco and it
would stop this. The hypocrisy continues.
Bill C-42 is the height of hypocrisy. No matter what hon.
members want to say, no matter what gestures they make, the
public knows that this is hypocrisy.
The government zealously defends health by publicly attacking
tobacco companies verbally, but not so realistically. It is
still going to take the tax and the political donations and it is
still going to be the cause of hundreds of young people becoming
addicted to cigarettes in the next five years. The government
and the Minister of Health cannot deny that.
The Minister of Health is in a very uncomfortable position with
this bill. Go ahead and collect the large revenues and spend
less than 1% on public advertising for our youth not to become
addicted. That in itself is an act of hypocrisy of the highest
degree.
The Minister of Health can tell us that the revenue they take in
from tobacco does not even cover the cost of the medical problems
caused by tobacco, let alone providing any educational material
to put into our schools.
The hypocrisy in this bill, in not dealing with one of the
biggest problems facing the health of Canadians, is to phase it
in over five years. Even if 10% of those kids who are now 12
years of age become addicted simply because of the inability of
this bill to do what Canada wants it to do, then the fault will
surely fall on the government opposite. It has to.
The government is phasing this in over a five year period and is
still allowing limited advertising and the whole bit. However,
when it needs more money, does anyone know what it will do?
Canadians know what it will do. It will make amendments down the
road in about three or four years and will go over the whole
process again.
I have lost relatives to tobacco. I have seen many young people
destroy their lives with tobacco. I have seen an adult of only
30-some years of age, addicted in his teens, laying in a hospital
bed. How can hon. members opposite sit there and support a bill
that is going to be phased in? I cannot understand it and I do
not think they do.
I know they say they received a letter on their desk which told
them to support the bill, but let each member examine themselves.
Let every member who votes in this House examine themselves.
Let them take a look at a brother dying of throat cancer at 49
years of age because there was no program. They are not
justifying it.
I happen to have a twin brother. The same fate awaits him
because we did not have the medical knowledge that the hon.
Minister of Health has now. We did not have all of the medical
knowledge from the Canadian Cancer Society.
We did not have thousands of people who were deadly against this
bill.
1520
Death and destruction is being phased in to untold millions of
young Canadians who will be addicted under this rather fluffy
policy. I beg of all members on both sides of the House to
please examine their positions. Never mind the tax revenue.
Never mind the political grants. Let us just think of the
teenagers who will be addicted, have a free vote and watch Bill
C-42 be defeated.
Please, for the sake of our young people, vote with your
conscience and not with your party.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member has certainly spoken in very strong terms about this bill.
It is clear that he feels very emotional about it.
Can the member elaborate on why he believes that not just this
government but governments over the past several years have
refused to take a tough stand on this issue when we have known
for some time through scientific evidence that this addiction is
deadly and that children are taking up the addiction because of
advertising?
I would also ask the member to elaborate on the comments he made
surrounding his belief that there are several people on the
government side who would vote against this bill if they were
given the chance to do so. I would like him to explain clearly
what he means by that.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the latter
part of the hon. member's question first.
I believe that people on that side of the House, as well as on
this side, if they are given the opportunity to do some soul
searching, and if that soul searching is strong enough and rises
above the party's position, will vote this bill down.
I respect hon. members on the other side of the House and I know
how many of them want to vote. They have told me how they want
to vote.
With respect to the other part of the question, it has been
proven beyond a doubt that more advertising, more accessibility
and a cheaper product increases consumption. All it does is
bring about more death. It brings about more addiction. The
fault, as we look at the five year phase in period, will hang
very heavily on some people's shoulders. It will be on the
shoulders of the people who vote yes for this tobacco bill. Make
no mistake about it.
As Abraham Lincoln said about liquor, it has many defenders,
but so far nobody has come up with a defence. I would challenge
anyone on either side of this House to realistically study Bill
C-42 and come up with one good defence as to why we should
continue to advertise tobacco products and make them available
over the counter. I know they have taken strong action, but the
fact is that I cannot go to any high school in my riding and not
see youth smoking, despite what they are doing.
With this phase in period, all they are doing is asking them to
continue in dribbles.
My conscience, and I am sure the conscience of many members,
both in the back and front rows, will say that Bill C-42 is a
mistake. Take it back to the drawing board and come up with
something that is saleable to Canadians and to all the health
organizations in Canada who do not think kindly of this bill
being passed.
1525
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member made another comment that I would like him to
elaborate on, and that is that he believes that the portion of
this bill that is supposed to be phased in will never happen. I
have heard others in the debate make that comment as well. They
believe that the phase in will never happen, that the government
will back off on this once again, as it did on the original piece
of legislation.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question. As long as the profits from the tobacco industry
contribute to the revenue of this government, or of any
government, without going directly to health care or directly to
education, then it is going to be wiggled around forever because
it likes to get its hands on money.
Secondly, as long as the tobacco tycoons are able every four
years to shovel a whole bunch of money into the coffers of this
party or any other party, this bill will never become a reality.
I can assure members from experience that this bill will never
become a reality because the government always wants money and it
just loves political patronage from tycoons in the tobacco
industry.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
to respond to the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, it is
clear that his emotional involvement in this issue has clouded
his usual judgment and has led him to speak excessively,
inappropriately and inaccurately.
I will put aside the inappropriate and excessive remarks, some
of which were clearly out of order. But let me deal with the
inaccuracies because it is important that the record be set
straight.
The bill before the House strengthens the Tobacco Act which
already is the toughest in the western world. When I was in
Geneva last June at the World Health Organization a number of
countries asked me for a copy of our legislation. They want to
copy it. This is the most intelligent and effective anti-tobacco
legislation in the western world.
Bill C-71, which as passed by this House a year and a half ago,
provided for promotion by tobacco companies forever, although it
was limited. This bill goes further. It prohibits sponsorship
and promotion by tobacco companies altogether within five years.
The Canadian Medical Association said “We are pleased that
health minister Rock has recognized the need for a full ban”.
The Cancer Society, through its spokesperson Rob Cunningham, said
“A total ban on sponsorships is an important improvement to the
act, one that we strongly support”.
Garfield Mahood of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association said “We
are pleased the government has finally recognized the need for a
complete sponsorship ban”.
The Calgary Herald wrote “The new legislation is workable
and defensible”. I could go on.
The public, the spokespersons, the informed members of the public
in this country support the government. The step we have taken
will end sponsorship by tobacco companies within five years and
that is very much in the interests of the health of Canadians.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has
come into this debate saying that it is most progressive.
Will the minister not agree, and I know that he will, that
phasing in something of this nature does not work? It has never
worked in this country and it is not going to work now.
If it is a good thing to bring about a total ban on cigarette
and tobacco advertising in the year 2003, what is wrong with a
total ban in 1998? That is what Canadians are asking.
I say to the Minister of Health that a lot of people will lose
their lives to cancer during those five years and the guilt is
going to lie on those people who support this bill.
1530
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to that.
The member speaks as though the bill is the only step we are
taking in relation to tobacco.
The bill represents a few sections in a statute which is
elaborate, comprehensive and powerful. It empowers the
government to regulate tobacco as a product. It makes it an
offence to sell tobacco to kids under age 18. It puts the
tightest restrictions on advertising as well as dealing with
sponsorship.
The member ought not to pretend that Bill C-42 is the only step
we are taking against tobacco. It is a small part of a large
strategy. I remind the member that the government will also be
spending $100 million and enormous energy over the next five
years to persuade young children not to smoke.
I have a 13 year old daughter and two 11 year old sons and I am
as concerned as anyone that they not become addicted to tobacco.
I will take every step I can to ensure that they do not. I want
the help of governments across the country in achieving that
objective.
I do not want the member to pretend that this is all, because it
is only part of a very large strategy.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. minister
has spoken. He said that they will spend $100 million on
education programs.
Where I come from people have an expression “Put your money
where your mouth is”. How much money will the government take
in revenue every time it spends $100 million in five years? The
problem is that a very small percentage of the revenue taken is
being spent on educational purposes to prevent smoking. Yet they
are filling the coffers of the government on the backs of healthy
young people and are spending a mere percentage of what is taken
in. That is why—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just like question
period, when your 35 seconds are up your time is up.
That last exchange was getting fairly close to innuendo which
was not strictly parliamentary. I was listening to it, but I
want to make the point that at no time were any comments made
that were specifically directed to specific individuals. In the
opinion of the Chair there was nothing in any of the exchanges
which was out of order.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today after the recent exchange. It is nice to
have a minister in the House. He is looking rather relaxed and
cool these days. We have not been after him very much, but that
too will change. He can obviously pose a question as well. It
was nice to see that.
We are here to talk about Bill C-42, the bill to amend the
Tobacco Act. It provides a five year phased in transition period
toward a prohibition of tobacco sponsorship promotion.
My constituents in Lethbridge have talked to me about the bill.
They are concerned with keeping harmful products, particularly
tobacco, away from youth. I received a number of letters, phone
calls and visits to my office indicating that we have to keep our
kids away from this stuff.
Tobacco comes in many forms. Chewing tobacco has become
popular. When I think back to when I was a youth I smoked for a
number of years. I do not smoke now. I have not smoked for 12
or 15 years. Some days around here I am about half an hour away
from starting again, but I hope I never do.
I still remember the flashy full colour ads on the back of
magazines and billboards such as the Marlboro man. More and more
the advertising was scoped to youth. Tobacco companies saw where
their future was and they targeted them.
At first glance when the bill was introduced we felt it was
good, that the bill would restrict advertising to young people
and help protect the youth of Canada. As we started to study it
and see the phase in part of it and the fact that there is no
firm date to start, it began to lose some of its lustre.
1535
The fact remains that tobacco companies are huge, powerful
forces in the world. They have lots of money. They can crank up
advertising agencies across North America to target whomever they
wish.
I think it has been said that advertising on Formula One race
cars is one of the most highly visible places in the world to
advertise. It attracts young people. The fact that the bill was
introduced was great, but on the one hand the government is
trying to show that it cares about health and about young people
and on the other hand is still taking tax money from the sale of
tobacco.
The government has slowed down the process so that it could keep
the revenue flow going while still looking like it is championing
this act. As originally intended it was good and it would have
done what we wanted. Slowly it has looked to us like the
government is dragging its feet and will not move on this.
I have talked with people in convenience stores and corner
markets who sell cigarettes. They do not have a problem with any
legislation. Some good legislation has been brought in so that
they cannot sell tobacco to minors. The other day a person
indicated that it was an offence if young people asked for the
price of cigarettes and it was given.
Lots of things have been done. To do that on one end and still
allow the phase in time for advertising just does not add up. If
we are serious about keeping these products away from our young
people and if we are serious about the health of Canadians, let
us start as soon as we can. Let us not extend this phase in
program and let us do the job.
Regarding education, the minister said that $100 million over
the next period of time would be spent to educate young people on
the hazards of smoking. The hon. member who spoke before me
referred to the personal tragedy he saw because of cigarette
smoking in his family. I think we can relate to that. We have
all had family, friends or neighbours who have suffered because
of it.
Smoking is an addiction and something not to expose our children
to, but it is a product that can be legally bought when someone
becomes 18. I guess there are ways of getting them before then.
To allow the advertising, to encourage it to happen, is wrong. We
should work very hard in our approach to changing that.
The Reform Party certainly would support protection for youth
from being targeted for tobacco products. We would encourage the
government to have another look at it and to implement its
policies as quickly as it can.
There is the whole public relations aspect of what is happening
whereby the government has legislation before us that would keep
tobacco out of the hands of children. It is making a lot of
noise about the subject, but it is taking a long time to
implement it. In the meantime it is still reaping benefits from
the sale of tobacco. We would like to see this aspect changed.
If the minister were serious about the legislation, he would put
it into motion. Let us not move the deadline to start
implementation further and further away. Let us get it into law
now.
Regarding the whole sponsorship agreement, advertising can be
targeted to any sector of society. We can target young people.
We can target the baby boomers, whomever we wish. There are ways
to poll people to find out what people are interested in. The
agencies can design advertising to do that.
As far as adults are concerned, if I choose to start smoking
tomorrow, who will stop me besides my own personal thoughts?
However we have to help our young people today realize that
smoking is causing problems.
1540
I go to quite a few rodeo events during the summer and I see
young people with a round can of chewing tobacco in their back
pocket. It gets to become a trademark: if you have one of those
you are macho. Where does the idea come from that chewing
tobacco is cool? It comes from advertising. We saw a few years
ago the different forms in which this product was packaged to
appeal to young people.
Let us have a picture of a cancerous lip or a young man or woman
with throat cancer or stomach cancer from this stuff. Let us
make them aware that aside from the glorified side that is
advertised and portrayed there is a side that is dangerous and
can harm them.
I reiterate that if the legislation moves forward and prohibits
advertising directed at youth the answer would be to do it
quickly. The phased in program leaves it open to interpretation.
While the government is holding off from implementing the
legislation it continues to reap the benefits of tobacco sales.
Let us stop that aspect of it. Let us truly target advertising
directed at young people and get on with the bill.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the comments of my hon. colleague and would like to ask him a
question.
In the speech I made earlier I indicated that the government was
cowardly in bringing in legislation which limits the advertising
of cigarettes. It is something that I agree with in principle. I
do not think we should be allowing a process that encourages
young people to start smoking. However, the government is
cowardly in doing that without also declaring that tobacco is a
dangerous substance.
By labelling it so, the government would then have the moral and
legal right to actually limit that advertising. Otherwise it
runs into the question of being challenged under the human rights
protection act or whatever in terms of limiting freedom of speech
when it says to a company that produces and markets a legitimate
product that it cannot advertise its product. Presumably the
product is 100% legitimate. It is even subsidized by the
Government of Canada. It seems to me that there is an anomaly.
Would the member for Lethbridge comment on that? Would he also
favour declaring it a dangerous substance and going all out to
stop this cancer on our society, with a pun intended there?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Elk Island. It is a dangerous substance. We can call it
whatever we wish, but the proof is in that it does cause disease.
It causes all kinds of problems, lung problems and cancer. I
believe most of the product is labelled today to indicate that
smoking cause lungs cancer.
On one hand to label the product and try to discourage the use
of it but on the other hand to allow glitzy advertising through
any means possible to get the word out that it is there and is to
be used is a conflict.
The hon. member is right. We say it is a dangerous product and
label it as such because it contains all things that will hurt
people. There are warnings on the packages that pregnant women
should not smoke and that it will cause lung cancer. Then let us
realize that and not allow advertising of a dangerous product.
1545
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
Earlier we heard the Minister of Health speak on this bill. He
talked about how good it was, how people from other countries are
singing the praises of this bill and how it is to be duplicated,
replicated by other nations, that they are clamouring at the
doors for this piece of legislation. While perhaps well
intentioned, I do not agree with the premise in his argument that
this bill goes far enough.
As a former teacher I taught grade seven students for a number
of years. Sadly, a number of them did start smoking at the very
young ages of 10, 11 and 12 years old.
Does my colleague think this bill goes far enough and quickly
enough to make the necessary changes to stop young people from
getting involved in this habit which is so devastating?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I might have alluded to
that somewhat in my presentation. When we first saw this
legislation come through we felt that this would stop the
advertising. As we got into it, we realized that there was a
phase-in period. The time when it will start has not been set.
We need to move quickly. Every day that goes by is a day lost
to stop this practice. We should do it, but we should it now.
This phase-in time is not necessary. If we are serious about
protecting young people, then let us get serious and do it.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the
debate. Frankly anyone watching this debate would wonder whether
or not the members who have been speaking actually understand
what this legislation is intended to do.
It amends the most progressive legislation in the western world
and it creates an ultimate ban on sponsorship promotion within
five years. That is applauded and lauded by all of those who
know that Canada has had an enviable record worldwide. That
should be acknowledged by the members opposite.
Why will they not stand and acknowledge the progressive record
of this government in dealing with these important issues of
public policy?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, something that will
probably not happen is for us to stand in this place and
congratulate the government on this.
I made the point previously. If we are going to be serious about
the health situation, if we want to be the big leaders in the
world, and the government claims it is, then let us get serious
about it. Let us not say that we are going to have a five year
phase-in period. From when? It should have started years ago.
It should be in effect right now.
Maybe it is the most progressive bill, but it is progressing
further and further down the line. If the government wants to be
the guardian of all that is righteous, it should start doing that
right now.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been involved in the business of education for a
number of years. I am surprised with the advertising and the
means by which young people are getting tobacco products. Does my
hon. colleague not see that there are more and more young people,
particularly young girls, smoking cigarettes now than there was
during my time in the field of education?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, yes there is. It is
obvious from the stats, and it is especially young girls. It is
all part of the strategy that has been put in place to attract
certain sectors of our society to smoke. We have seen this
increase recently.
This legislation should be implemented as quickly as possible.
Had the five year phase-in program started a year ago, we would
have been into it. We should not have the phase-in period.
There is no firm date established by the government as to when
that five years will start. It is important that we start as soon
as we can.
1550
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder why the government is so reluctant to take a
strong stand on tobacco use. Why does it not bring forward
legislation that is really progressive in the idea of not only
preventing smoking, but to absolutely outlaw advertising totally.
I suppose industry giants, corporations are influencing the
government. I think this is one issue where the average Canadian
would stand behind the government and say that this time the
corporations do not get their way.
The tobacco farmers of southern Ontario can grow tremendous
crops, healthy crops such as vegetables and grains that do some
good for Canadians. In the hon. member's opinion, should the
government choose the health of Canadians over the corporations
in this case?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the member
for Lethbridge responds, I remind everyone to please address
questions and comments to each other through the Chair.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, the average
Canadian relies on the government for those types of things. Far
too many times the government is worried about getting into other
areas, but basic health, basic protection are things Canadians
should expect.
Right now we are facing a crisis in the agricultural sector. My
colleague from Selkirk—Interlake is very well aware of that. We
have had discussions in our caucus over the last few days about
exactly what can be done. The government needs to be involved in
some areas and it does not need to be involved in other areas.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to make a very short intervention on this bill. We have
heard debate on the bill. I was very pleased earlier to see the
Minister of Health get involved in the debate. I am going to ask
the minister to get involved again.
We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
say that this legislation will eventually lead to an ultimate
ban. She used those terms. I have a concern, because while the
government is talking tough, we have seen absolutely nothing from
the government. We do not know whether it is going to carry
through. I think it is accurate to say that this is the first
time in Canadian history we have seen a government actually back
off and get weaker in this area.
I would like to see the minister's real commitment on this
issue. I really want to test the minister's commitment and ask
him two questions.
Will the minister direct all revenue from tobacco, or at least
any extra revenue that his government will receive as a result of
the phase-in as opposed to immediate implementation, not to
general revenue but to prevention and health care? That is the
first question.
The second question I would like the minister to respond to is
will the minister pledge that his party and all candidates in the
next federal election and any byelection will not take a penny
from the tobacco lobby or individuals involved in the tobacco
lobby?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is certainly an
interesting twist on debate. Before we get too far into it, I
would ask members again to address each other through the chair.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is terribly wrong. He said that this government has
done nothing, yet when the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated
the old Tobacco Act, struck it down, said it was invalid, the
former Minister of Health, the one who preceded me, introduced
the Tobacco Act.
1555
I have already said to the House that it is considered a model
internationally. It is tough, it is smart and it is effective,
and it is going to help enormously in keeping cigarettes out of
the hands of kids. In addition, the Tobacco Act that was passed
in this place in April 1997 permitted tobacco companies to
continue sponsoring events and putting their names in front of
the public. It would have allowed them to do that forever,
although only on the bottom 10% of signs.
The member suggested that the bill now before the House weakens
that act. It does anything but. It strengthens the act by
introducing the notion that in five years tobacco companies will
have to stop altogether sponsoring and promoting events. The
member has it wrong. We are doing the right thing. He should
support this legislation.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I know this is not
question period. I know the minister does not have to answer but
I appreciate his getting up on questions and comments to make
some comments. I asked two questions. If the minister is going
to respond, he should answer those questions. Canadians would
really appreciate hearing his response to those questions.
Will the minister commit any extra revenue his government will
get as a result of the phase-in as opposed to immediate full
implementation to prevention and health care to deal with the
problem? Will he commit that any candidate running for the
Liberal Party at the time of the next election or any candidate
running in a byelection will not take one penny from the tobacco
lobby?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have been listening to this debate and noting the great passion
expressed by the members on the other side in their concern for
children's health. This is somewhat contradictory and puzzling
in relation to their positions on other issues that affect
children's health.
For example, many experts say that climate change will have a
greater impact on children's health than it will have on any
other demographic age group. Yet members opposite seem to have
the official stand on climate change that it does not exist. I
wonder how on one issue they can be concerned about the health of
children, yet on another very important issue on which there is a
consensus by people around the globe the member's party seems to
object.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this
question and I mean that so sincerely.
We stood here in the House in the last session when the Kyoto
deal was being talked about and we asked the environment minister
time after time, day after day to show the study the government
is basing Canada's position on that indicates man plays any role
in climate change and to bring that evidence forward. We wanted
to see it and we still want to see it.
The member talks about the harm from climate change. We know
that climate change has happened throughout history. We know from
records that have been left that climate change has happened.
However, when it comes to evidence that man plays a significant
role in any way in climate change, I would like the member to
cite her sources so I can look into this evidence as well.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I apologize
sincerely to this House for heckling but as I indicated in my
heckling I find it rather disturbing that the members of the
Reform Party can choose the issues they feel are important in
terms of children's health while they ignore a whole pile of
other issues that affect children's health. They can be quite
happy about regulating on certain kinds of issues that affect
children's health but they choose to ignore a whole pile of other
issues.
1600
I would be more than happy to drown the member on the opposite
side with volumes and volumes of evidence on the effects of
climate change and how it would impact on children and our
grandchildren.
Perhaps I could suggest that the hon. member contact the
Canadian Institute of Children's Health and it could provide all
kinds of detail for that member.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by
asking the member who did not respond by giving me even one
single source—
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with
all due respect, this is not question period, this is debate. The
member opposite has inappropriately—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, of course the member
does not have to respond. It is not question period. We do not
get responses in question period anyway, quite frankly.
The member made a point that climate change would do this and
that. Is the climate change she is anticipating global warming
or global cooling? The sources are pretty evenly matched on that
issue. They do not know whether the climate change is likely to
be global warming or global cooling. I asked her to cite just
one solid reference, one source for this information.
As we asked this in question period dozens of times and during
the debate on Kyoto before and after Canada took its position.
Again, she has refused to give even one reference. I guess that
shows where this debate is going.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member was not listening. As I said, I am more than happy to
drown the hon. member in paper. There is one very good source,
the Canadian Institute of Children's Health. There is not just a
single source but a whole network of people working on children's
health issues and environmental health issues and showing a link
between those.
I would be more than happy to give the member hundreds of
sources on this issue. I point something out to the member
opposite. I said climate change. I know that for some members in
this House this is a very difficult and complex issue to
understand. Climate change means climate change. It means that
in some parts of our country it will be cooler and in some parts
of our country it will be a lot warmer and hotter. It is called
climate change.
As the climate heats up out west, because the Reform Party
refuses to acknowledge the fact of global climate change, it will
find that its votes have all burned up.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, she really does not know
which way this climate change is going. I certainly acknowledge
the climate will change, it has changed throughout history. I
have no problem acknowledging that at all nor do I believe any
member of the Reform Party would have any problem acknowledging
that.
We know that is happening and will continue to happen. What is
important is to get some good evidence as to man's impact. I
welcome very seriously her offer to send some good documentation
that this is happening.
1605
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:
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, there have been some
discussions among the parties and I believe you would find
consent to defer the recorded division on second reading of Bill
C-42 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday, October 20.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
EXTRADITION ACT
Hon. Allan Rock (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition, to amend the Canada
Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend and
repeal other acts in consequence, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-40.
The bill overhauls extradition laws in Canada and creates a
modern, effective system for extradition appropriate for the 21st
century. It will help us to better meet our international
commitments and ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for
criminals seeking to avoid justice.
The Extradition Act, which is of general application, and the
Fugitive Offenders Act, which applies to the extradition process
between Commonwealth countries referred to as rendition, both
date from the late 1800s.
Aside from amendments to the extradition appeal process enacted
in 1992, these statutes have remained essentially unchanged from
the last century.
[Translation]
Extradition laws as they now stand cause serious problems, as we
are unable to turn over criminals to countries with which we do
not have extradition agreements or treaties; to entities other
than a state, such as United Nations tribunals for war crimes;
or to countries where extradition treaties are in force but
where an outdated list of offences does not include modern
offences like drug trafficking, money laundering and computer
crimes.
[English]
The current extradition process places onerous evidentiary
requirements on foreign states and the legislation does not set
out clear and adequate procedural and human rights safeguards for
persons whose extradition is being sought.
Given the increasing ease of international travel, the
advancement of technology and the global economy, major crime and
criminals are no longer local in nature.
Transnational crime and criminals are now the norm, not the
exception.
Canada's laws must be modernized in recognition of that reality.
1610
We have seen in the last few years a number of cases where
Canada's extradition laws have not been sufficient to enable
Canada to fulfill its international obligation and expeditiously
extradite fugitives to other countries in order to face justice.
The problem has been most acute in respect of countries of a
different legal tradition such as those in Europe.
In the case of a number of requests from countries other than
the United States extradition proceedings cannot be instituted.
In other instances states are so discouraged by the different
hurdles imposed by our current extradition law that they do not
even initiate an extradition request. The primary problem is that
the current legislation mandates that the foreign states submit
evidence in support of their request in a form which meets the
complicated requirements of Canadian evidentiary rules.
For countries which do not have a common law system, and for
which concepts such as hearsay are unknown, this requirement
makes the preparation of a request for extradition a tremendously
difficult task, and in some instances an impossible one. Even
with countries with a similar legal tradition such as the United
States, we have heard on numerous occasions how difficult it is
to obtain extradition from Canada. In the context of our other
common law jurisdictions such as Great Britain and Australia,
Canada's system is viewed as one fraught with difficulties due to
the antiquity of our legislation.
With global crime becoming a significant concern at home and
internationally, we know that the deficiencies in our legislation
will continue to be questioned. Within the G-7 P-8 forum for
example, states have been requested to modernize their
extradition laws in order to be responsive to the challenges of
today's transnational crimes and criminals. All the fora which
have considered the serious problem of transnational organized
crime have identified extradition as a critical tool to combat
this growing threat to world order. In the P-8, the United
Nation and within the Commonwealth there have been calls for
countries to put in place a comprehensive, effective and modern
process for extradition.
In light of Canada's antiquated extradition laws and the
magnitude of the changes necessary to modernize our current
process for extradition, an entirely new proposed extradition act
was drafted, amalgamating and substantially adding to the
provisions of the current Extradition Act and the Fugitive
Offenders Act.
An important feature of this bill is that it will allow for
extradition not just to states but to the United Nations war
crimes tribunal and any future entities of this nature, including
the proposed international criminal court, the statute for which
was recently adopted by the United Nations diplomatic conference
in Rome.
This bill will enable us to fulfill our international
obligations to comply with the United Nations security council
resolution establishing the international criminal tribunals for
Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. According to these resolutions
we have to provide assistance and surrender fugitives to the
tribunals if so requested.
As our law now stands, we could be in breach of our obligations
as members of the United Nations if persons sought by either
tribunal were located in Canada and we were not able to
extradite.
In addition to allowing for extradition to the international
criminal courts or tribunals, Bill C-40 will apply to all
requests for extradition made to Canada. Unlike our current
limited extradition regime, the new scheme allows for extradition
on the basis of bilateral and multilateral treaties, or where the
state or entity making the request is designated as an
extradition partner in a schedule to the bill.
1615
It also permits the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister
for International Trade to enter into a specific agreement for
extradition with any state or entity on a case by case basis.
The bill will also apply to all requests for extradition made by
Canada to a foreign state.
[Translation]
I would like to emphasize three particular aspects of the bill,
as they mark the most significant step toward modernizing our
extradition procedures.
As I said, one of the worst problems with the current
extradition process in Canada has to do with the complexity of
the evidentiary requirements imposed on foreign countries filing
requests for extradition with Canada.
For many countries, especially those with a legal tradition
different from ours, it is extremely difficult to collect all
the extradition documents required under Canadian rules of
evidence.
[English]
Under the new bill the legal standard for extradition would be
retained. That is, a Canadian judge will still have to be
satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before her or him of
the conduct underlying the request for extradition which, if it
occurred in Canada, would justify a trial for a criminal offence.
Lawyers like to refer to this as the prima facie test.
What would be modified is the form of evidence that could be
presented to the extradition judge. This approach addresses the
current difficult evidentiary requirement for first person
affidavits devoid of hearsay, which is the main problem
encountered by states requesting extradition from Canada.
Experience tells us that it is already extremely difficult for
states to meet the prima facie case standard through the use of
first person affidavits in relation to certain types of modern
day crime; for example, complicated fraud. With the increasing
complexity of transborder and international crime, it will be
more so in the future.
As I have said earlier, under the current system some countries
simply decide not to seek the extradition of fugitives because
they cannot comply with our current legal requirements. Those
fugitives, therefore, remain at large in our communities.
Under the new legislation the judge would admit into evidence
documentation contained in a record of the case. The record
would contain evidence gathered according to the rules and
procedures followed in the requesting state. It may contain a
summary of the evidence available prepared by the appropriate
foreign judge or official. The evidence may not be in the form
of an affidavit and may be unsworn. The objective is to accept
the evidence in the form used by the foreign state, provided it
is sufficient according to a Canadian extradition judge to
demonstrate criminal conduct under Canadian law and to require a
trial in the requesting state.
This record of the case would be certified by appropriate
authorities in the requesting state and accompanied by certain
assurances in relation to issues such as the availability of the
evidence, its sufficiency for prosecution purposes or its
accuracy.
The notion of a record of the case is consistent with the recent
Supreme Court of Canada decision on hearsay in which the supreme
court abandoned the strict formalism of the hearsay rule to adopt
a more flexible standard based on necessity and circumstantial
guarantee of trustworthiness.
In some respects, therefore, the existent evidentiary
requirements for a Canadian extradition hearing are more
formalistic and onerous than those for a Canadian trial.
Following a careful consideration of other options, we concluded
that the record of the case should be available to all foreign
states irrespective of their legal system. The minister believes
that the “record of the case for all states option” is the best
compromise between the present impractical evidentiary
requirements and the absence of any judicial assessment of the
evidence, as is presently the procedure followed in Australia and
the United Kingdom in respect of its European partners.
With this option the legal test would not change. What would
change, however, is the form in which that evidence would be
acceptable in a Canadian court.
[Translation]
Bill C-40 also includes a number of improvements and safeguards.
1620
First, when he submits an extradition request so that the person
sought can be tried, the competent prosecutor will have to
certify in Canada that the summarized evidence is available for
the trial and is sufficient, in a common law system for example,
for prosecution purposes in that country.
[English]
Second, the person sought will receive a summary of the case
rather than just affidavits on particular elements. These will
provide a clearer picture in our opinion of the evidence
supporting the request.
Third, the Minister of Justice may decline to issue an authority
to proceed with an extradition hearing if the minister is not
satisfied with the content of the record.
Finally, as noted above, the extradition judge will order
committal of the person into custody to await surrender only if
evidence would justify committal for trial in Canada if the
offence was committed here in Canada.
This brings me to the second important feature of this reform.
The extradition law, as it currently stands, does not provide for
a code of procedure. If one were to consult the Extradition Act
or the Fugitive Offenders Act, one would be hard pressed to
understand how proceedings commence, whether the fugitive is
entitled to bail, how someone is to be arrested, how one can
waive proceedings, whether temporary surrender is possible, et
cetera. In other words, there is a clear need to spell out the
procedure.
It is important at a time when transborder crime is becoming
more prevalent to have an extradition process which is effective
on a practical level.
At the same time, it is equally important that the process be a
clear one and that the written statute detail the nature of that
process and the protections accorded to those who are the subject
of extradition proceedings. We simply cannot afford to be in the
position where we will be criticized by Canadians for having let
the country become a haven for criminals by not evolving with our
times. Yet we must also produce a reform which addresses the
basic procedural requirements needed for a fair extradition
process in Canada.
Let me briefly go through the main procedural features included
in the extradition law reform. The first point, which is clearly
related to the evidentiary requirements that I just spoke about,
concerns the respective roles of the courts and the executive
branch in extradition cases.
The current two-track system will be maintained. The judicial
track will continue to ensure that the underlying conduct would
be criminal in Canada and there is a case against the person.
The Minister of Justice, on the other hand, will have the
responsibility for assessing the foreign legal system to ensure
that human rights are respected and a fair trial will be provided
in the requesting state.
The bill outlines the mandatory and discretionary grounds for
the refusal of surrender by the minister, such as political
offence, lack of jurisdiction, death penalty, humanitarian
considerations, previous acquittal or conviction and trial in
absentia.
However, the Minister of Justice will continue to have
discretion to decide in each particular case whether or not to
seek assurances from the requesting state that the death penalty
will not be imposed or carried out.
It should be noted that under no circumstances shall the
minister make a surrender order if he or she is satisfied that
the surrender would be unjust or oppressive or that extradition
has been sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the
person by reason of race, religion, sex or other similar grounds.
Where a person could face prosecution or punishment because of a
prohibited ground of discrimination, the clause we chose was
directly taken from the United Nations model treaty on
extradition. The UN treaty provides greater protection than
exists in most bilateral treaties.
However, I am aware that the list of grounds could be considered
under-inclusive and, as a result, the minister is asking the
committee to analyse this clause in particular.
Overall, the safeguards referred to in the legislation are
provided in addition to any protection under the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms which the person sought may have.
1625
As well, the decisions to be made by the extradition judge or by
the Minister of Justice will be subject to appeal or review by
provincial courts of appeal.
Finally, the proposed legislation also seeks to harmonize the
extradition and refugee processes, as conflict may arise when
someone subject to an extradition request makes a claim for
refugee status.
Thus, Bill C-40 modifies the Extradition Act and the Immigration
Act in order to avoid duplication of decision making and to limit
delay in the extradition process. The legislation also provides
a means for consultation between the Minister of Justice and the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in such matters.
More specifically, the Immigration Act would be modified to
provide that if extradition proceedings have been initiated for
an offence punishable in Canada by a maximum of 10 years'
imprisonment or more and that person has claimed refugee status,
a hearing by the convention refugee determination division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board shall not be commenced or shall be
adjourned until a final decision on extradition is rendered.
If the decision is made not to extradite the person, the
convention refugee determination division hearing may commence or
resume.
If the person is committed for extradition by an extradition
judge and ordered surrendered by the Minister of Justice, the
order of surrender is deemed to be a decision by the CRDD that
the person is not a convention refugee because of the evidentiary
grounds presented in the extradition case of a serious
non-political offence.
This is in keeping with the exclusion on grounds of serious
non-political crimes provided by article 1F(b) of the Refugee
Convention to which Canada is bound.
I cannot end my overview of Bill C-40 without mentioning the
important modifications to the Criminal Code, the Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Canada Evidence Act
which allow for the use of video and audio-link technology to
gather evidence and provide testimony from witnesses in Canada or
abroad.
Although these modifications will contribute to a more efficient
extradition process in specific cases, their aim is much broader
as they will allow the use of such technology in criminal and
other proceedings as well.
In an age of amazing technological development it is critical
that our laws and justice system are flexible enough to permit
the use of that technology where possible, appropriate and
beneficial to proceedings.
When globalization of new technologies is expanding the reach of
organized crime we must ensure that our justice system also uses
new technologies to capture and prosecute criminals. Where
witnesses cannot be brought before the court because they are
outside Canada or they are in another part of Canada and
circumstances preclude their attendance, the use of video or
audio-link technology is a much better alternative than the
written statement or the taking of evidence by a foreign court.
I believe that these modifications represent a major, possibly
revolutionary, change in testimonial evidence which takes into
account modern day realities and the rights of the accused.
The bill provides that, in respect of video and audio-link
evidence from Canada to a foreign state, the laws relating to
evidence and procedure of a foreign state would apply as though
the person testifying in Canada was physically before the court
outside Canada, but only if the evidence would not disclose
information otherwise protected by the Canadian law of
non-disclosure of information or privilege.
However, the bill also provides that the Canadian law relating
to contempt of court, perjury and contradictory evidence would
apply to these persons, parties or witnesses, whether they are
testifying from Canada to a foreign state or from outside Canada
to Canada.
In the case of evidence given by the video or audio-link in
Canada by a witness elsewhere in Canada, the bill amends the
Criminal Code so that the court could order that such evidence be
provided by such means if it is appropriate considering all the
circumstances.
The court shall receive evidence given by video-link by a
witness outside of Canada unless one of the parties satisfies the
court that the reception of such testimony would be contrary to
the principles of fundamental justice in this country.
The court may receive evidence given by audio links from a
witness outside Canada, if it would be appropriate considering
all the circumstances.
1630
[Translation]
In conclusion, I wish to once again stress the importance of
that legislation for Canada and its partners. It brings about a
comprehensive review of Canada's extradition provisions, so as
to provide law enforcement authorities and prosecutors with the
tools they need to co-operate with other states and entities, in
order to counteract the threat of transborder crime and ensure
that Canada never becomes a haven for fugitives.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Automotive Industry; the hon.
member for Tobique—Mactaquac, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
Summit.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill
C-40. It is noble to modernize the Extradition Act and in fact
is long overdue.
Canada's current policies are outdated, slow and complex. As a
consequence we have members of genocidal regimes, killers and
illegals by the thousands in Canada living off Canadian society.
We do not know how many or where they are. Maybe Bill C-40 will
not be of much use until we devise a more efficient screening and
monitoring system for illegal refugees in Canada.
Reform supports extraditing these individuals to face
international criminal courts like Rwanda and Yugoslavia war
crimes tribunals. We believe in justice. These tribunals and
the concept of an international court with independent powers to
prosecute war criminals is a 50 year dream and is laudable. The
process to establish such a court has been a very difficult road.
Canada can take some solace in knowing that it has played such a
pivotal role in getting members to the table in the last minute
negotiations and in the hesitancy of some.
The new international criminal court will have power to
investigate, prosecute, indict and try persons for the most
serious crimes of international concern, including genocide,
crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.
Canada is one of the 119 signatories to this historic event. By
the Canadian government's own admission Canada has been a refuge
for war criminals and former members of genocidal regimes. Due
to our ineffectual immigration screening, removal and enforcement
system the problem is out of hand. Now at least if we can find
these illegals we have somewhere to send them.
The solicitor general keeps promising a crackdown on Canadian
organizations that are fronts for foreign terrorists. He says
that this is a serious problem. The auditor general agrees and
says that Canada has been negligent in dealing with it. We all
respect what the auditor general says because it is his group
that is independent and tells us what is going on in the
government of the day, no matter who it is.
It is not comforting to hear the solicitor general say that
Canada had become a haven for every known terrorist group in the
world. It is a sobering thought and it is about time we did
something about it. I repeat that because it is not too often
the solicitor general of any government would say that. He said
that Canada had become a haven for every known terrorist group in
the world. The bill is a small part of solving some of that
problem.
We not only have terrorists groups in Canada. We have some 324
modern day war criminals and another 62 suspected war criminals
in Canada. Those are the ones we know about. We have among us
death squad members, torturers, individuals accused of genocide
and officials from corrupt regimes in Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Rwanda and El Salvador,
a virtual cornucopia of the world's worst.
1635
That is a pathetic statement about the pathetic immigration
system in Canada. We would not be here today debating Bill C-40
if we had an immigration system that really worked. Our
immigration system has played the refugee game with these
individuals for too long. War criminals are not refugees just
because they arrive at the border and say that they are refugees.
They are war criminals and we have to take a very tough stand on
that issue.
Bill C-40 changes a 120 year old law. There are not too many
members who will ever get to debate a bill that old in the House.
The present statute allows Canada to extradite criminal suspects
to other countries but not to the tribunal set up by the United
Nations to prosecute war criminals from the former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda.
Bill C-40 will now allow Canada to send suspects to a permanent
international court. For years Canada pressed for such courts
but ironically our law would not allow us to extradite the
suspects.
Bill C-40 will modernize extradition proceedings by allowing
extradition to face international criminal court like Rwanda and
Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals, by broadening the grounds for
extradition but removing the list of indictable offences and
replacing it with the requirements that the conduct be an offence
in both countries, and by permitting the temporary surrender of a
convict who is serving time in Canada to another state to face
trial there. Is it not interesting that they use the phrase
“the temporary surrender of a convict who is serving time” to
somewhere else to face a trial there? I will discuss that later.
Bill C-40 will modernize extradition proceedings by permitting
the use of video and audio technology to conduct hearings. It is
nice to know we are getting into the modern age. It will link the
extradition and refugee appeals process where a person has sought
to avoid extradition by claiming to be a refugee. The law had to
be changed to save Canada from the embarrassment it is facing on
this issue.
The Reform Party is not without its reservations regarding some
elements of Bill C-40 despite what it purports to do. Bill C-40
is meant to streamline the extradition process by rolling two
existing bills, the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1882 and the
Extradition Act of 1877, into one bill.
Will the system be less complex? We do not know that. These
two old bills have not worked and now we have one new bill. Will
it be less complex? Will it allow Canadians to know that the
people arrested for these offences can be extradited, tried
somewhere else and removed from Canada in a very expeditious
manner?
The clause in Bill C-40 which would effectively broaden the
grounds for extradition by abandoning what is known as the list
approach to offences is a welcome change. The current system,
which only allows for extradition of the criminal when the act is
part of an official list, is outdated and cumbersome. The list
of offences varies from country to country.
Under Bill C-40 an extraditable offence will be a crime in both
countries. This will not just happen. I sense a lot of
co-ordination will have to take place to get the system working
properly.
Bill C-40 will ease the rules that dictate the sort of evidence
that must be presented by a nation seeking the extradition of an
alleged offender. Canada has been criticized in the past for its
narrow approach to what can be used as evidence. This is new
territory. In fact it is a quantum change. I suspect much
preparatory work will have to be done.
Bill C-40 will allow the flexibility to deal on a case by case
basis with extradition requests where no treaty is in place.
Getting back to the two war crimes tribunals established in The
Hague and in Tanzania, this is the first time in 50 years since
Nuremberg that the world community has acted to create an
international jurisdiction to hold individuals responsible for
international crimes.
In the Rwanda situation alone 32 people indicted by the tribunal
are facing charges for the slaughter of an estimated 800,000
people during a three month rampage in 1994.
1640
As I said before, there are some concerns with the bill. Bill
C-40, despite removing many layers of appeals in the extradition
process, involved courts to minister, to refugee board, back to
minister and then back to court. It would be naive to believe
that Bill C-40 makes extradition immediate.
Delays have always favoured the accused because witnesses die.
The supreme court in the Askov case asked that trials be held
within a six month period to ensure that justice be done. That
does not happen very often. Six months is a very short period of
time for most of these cases. As Justice Gibson of the federal
court ruled, Canada cannot deport people without a fair and just
assessment of whether they would face the risk of torture if
returned.
What this means to me is court challenges and charter defences
right up to the supreme court. Bill C-40 will be tested. Is it
watertight? We have to produce bills in the House that can meet
the test of the supreme court. We cannot be using the supreme
court as a judge of what the people who were elected to govern
Canada should be doing. I am afraid the bill does not meet that
test. The supreme court may have asked for hearings within a six
month period, but as we all know extradition routinely takes many
years.
Let me talk about charter appeals and provide four examples of
delay and why I am fearful Bill C-40 will not conclude this
charter madness. Charter appeals on the grounds of cruel and
unusual punishment allow multiple appeals as highlighted by the
following: Rafay and Burns. Murder was committed in 1994 by
this pair. The case will be heard in the supreme court in
November. The B.C. Court of Appeal found that the minister had
to refuse extradition because they faced execution for
bludgeoning Rafay's parents to death.
Pierino and Miachael Divito are Mafia figures wanted in the U.S.
for conspiracy to import 300 kilos of cocaine. It goes to court
because of a much harsher drug sentence handed out in the U.S.
Their lawyers vow that they will go all the way to the supreme
court. Why are they going to the Supreme Court? They do not
want to be tried in the United States because they will go to
jail for a long time. They want to stay in Canada. Does this
law solve that problem? I do not think it does.
Salavatore Cazzetta, leader of the Rock Machine biker gang,
wanted in the U.S. for drug trafficking charges, was delayed
extradition for four years with arguments taken all the way to
the Supreme Court of Canada.
Michael Gwynne, a fugitive serving a 120 year sentence, was
apprehended in 1993. He has argued his case for five years all
the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, Bill C-40 does
nothing to preclude these types of appeals.
I would like to read from a July 29, 1997 article by Jeffrey
Simpson in the Globe and Mail. It has to do with the Rafay
case and what he calls charter madness. I believe this article
represents what an overwhelming majority of Canadians think. He
wrote:
On July 12, 1994, the parents of Atif Rafay were bludgeoned to
death with a baseball bat at their home in Bellevue, Wash. Local
police suspected the murderers were Atif Rafay and a friend, Glen
Burns. Lacking enough evidence, however, the police asked for
and received undercover co-operation from the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, since the two suspects lived in Canada and were
Canadian citizens.
Courtesy of the undercover operation, Atif and Glen admitted
they had killed Mr. Rafay's parents for life insurance and the
value of the parents' home. These admissions were voluntary.
Case closed. But hold on. We live in the Age of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, which gives the ruling of judges greater
impact on criminal law than anything done by a mere minister of
justice or group of parliamentarians.
Now, in the Rafay-Burns case, the B.C. Court of Appeal relied on
the Charter to block the extradition of the two men wanted for
murder in the United States.
Why? It was because Canada had abolished the death penalty. He
continued:
Were the two men found guilty in Washington and put to death, as
that state's laws allow, then their charter rights would be
violated, including the one that any Canadian citizen is allowed
to return home.
Canada, of course, always waxes indignant when the United States
or any other country tries to impose its laws on others. Nothing
gets Canadians to sit more upright on their white charger of
morality than denouncing the “extraterritorial” application of
U.S. laws. But if Canadian laws, as in this charter case, are
being applied in an extraterritorial sense, that is, our charter
must protect even those accused of first degree murder, then
everything is fine because we just have to believe our sense of
justice is superior to that of the Americans.
If these had been U.S. citizens, the extraditions would have
proceeded.
But because the two are Canadians and therefore entitled, in the
opinion of the court, to the full protection of the charter
wherever they are, including for acts possibly committed in
another country, they cannot be extradited.
This is charter madness, of which plenty is going around. When
foreigners travel in this country, they obey Canadian laws and
pay the penalty if they break them. They may not like our
penalties, they may think their system of justice back home is
superior, but that's one of the risks people take when
travelling, let alone committing first degree murder.
Similarly, when Canadians are on U.S. soil, U.S. laws apply. If
we break those laws and flee back across the border to escape
punishment, an extradition treaty properly clicks into place so
that Canada is not a “safe haven” for criminals of whatever
nationality, Canadian or otherwise. That we might not favour
capital punishment (and I don't) doesn't mean we impose our sense
of what is right for Canadian citizens accused of first degree
murder somewhere where the death penalty applies. But of course,
in the age of the charter, this sort of common sense, community
protecting sort of reasoning is out the window of judicial policy
making.
1645
That story alone should let us know there is a serious problem.
I have heard debates in this House over the last couple of weeks
that sometimes members on this side do not listen to what the
public wants. There is a quote on the gun control bill, why do
you not listen to what the public wants. In this case, 85% of
Canadians would vote for capital punishment if there was a
referendum.
Yet we have two young people who murdered one of the fellow's
parents in a terrible crime and should have to face that penalty.
But here they are sitting in a Canadian jail at Canadian expense
just because of where they were born.
None of us would respect that. None of us expect that we can
run across the border, rob a bank and head back home because
perhaps our laws are better. That is what is happening with our
laws in this country. That is why we are becoming one of the
biggest import-export areas for drugs in the world. Our
sentences are too weak and one cannot be extradited if caught.
This bill is not going solve those problems. We are going to
have a lot of interesting times in committee asking questions of
those who drafted this bill to see if it really gets to where it
has to get. The people in the House right here get to make the
laws, not those people sitting a couple of blocks away in the
supreme court.
I have another objection to Bill C-40. The bill preserves the
minister's discretion in cases. This is part of the delay
problem. It injects the minister into a judicial process. It is
wrong and we will not support that aspect of the bill. This
should not be the minister's role. This is a judicial role, an
independent role.
We cannot have any tinge of political interference when it comes
to extradition for criminal offences. The minister should have no
discretion to seek assurances on sentences, period. What it does
is it imposes standards which necessarily vary from one minister
to the next, or from one country to the next.
The role of the court should be simple in these extradition
cases. The conduct complained of is a crime in Canada, a very
simple rule. The person sought is in fact the person accused.
Again it is very simple. There is a valid extradition treaty. The
bottom line is that the severity of the punishment in the other
country should be irrelevant.
I have another concern. Extradition is costly. I have some
questions about the mechanics and the logistics of Bill C-40. We
have called a number of government departments and have read the
bill very thoroughly ourselves. These questions are not answered
in the bill.
1650
Who pays for the transportation of a criminal to the War Crimes
Tribunal or the International Court? Who pays any related costs?
Who pays for legal counsel for the accused in charter cases? And
we know they are all going to go to the max, to the supreme
court. Who pays for the legal defence before the tribunal? It
had better not be Canada that is on the hook. Why should we pay
to get rid of someone wanted by someone else?
It is not unlike the process right now. When someone comes to
this country and says the word refugee at the border, we accept
them. We pay their health costs and their legal costs, all the
way for every court they go to. We know the majority of these
people are just trying to jump the queue which is not acceptable
to most Canadians. To an overwhelming majority of Canadians that
is just not acceptable.
Bill C-40 may improve some things but it is not perfect. We
will be exploring many more details of this bill in the committee
and seeking answers to the questions I posed in my opening
remarks today.
We look forward to working with members on this side and the
other side in the committee to get, after 120 years sitting on
the books of Canada, a bill that will work, that will please
Canadians and a bill in which the will of Canadians cannot be
changed by a small number of people up the street from the House
of Commons. We want to make sure this bill is airtight so that it
does the job and works for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois supports the
principle of this legislation, and in fact the bill itself,
since, as it was mentioned, it updates a century old act. Who
knows, Mr. Speaker, you might reach that age too.
Before getting into the thick of things, I would like, with your
permission, to wish a happy 20th birthday to an employee of the
House of Commons who works in the West Block, and who is at our
service every day. That young person is Jude-Étienne Blanchette.
I would ask the members of this House to join me in wishing him
a happy birthday.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I also wish much success to a new clerk of the
House of Commons, Nancy Hall, with whom I had the pleasure of
working in the subcommittee on HIV and AIDS.
Let us now turn our attention to Bill C-40. This is an important
piece of legislation, because extradition must be viewed with
two realities in mind. The first one is of course the movement
of people between countries. We are well aware that one of the
reasons for this bill is that 100 years ago, the means of
communication were not what they are now.
We must remember that, 100 years ago, people traveled by train.
A hundred years ago, there was no Internet. A hundred years
ago, the whole issue of telemarketing did not exist. A hundred
years ago, the burning issues were railroads and electrical
energy. Those were the days of Sigmund Freud, with whose name
people will be familiar. I myself am an admirer of Freud, the
father of psychoanalysis, a man who left his mark.
A hundred years later, we realize that the question of
population flows—the word itself suggests mobility—is connected
with crime. There are all sorts of new types of crime one must
think about.
Before going into Bill C-40 in detail, let us think about money
laundering alone.
If any one member in this House has raised this matter, it is
the very one who speaks to you now, because money laundering is
connected with the most troubling threat, the parallel economy.
If I asked you to bet on the figures involved in money
laundering, I am sure you could not hit on the figure.
1655
That is why I will promptly provide you with that figure:
somewhere in the order of $20 billion involved in money
laundering. Not a figure to be sneezed at.
The merit of the bill lies in its desire to bring the
legislation up to date, to simplify it. For this reason, it
must be understood right off the bat that, in reality, two
pieces of legislation are involved when we are discussing Bill
C-40: the Extradition Act, for there is such a piece of
legislation, and the Fugitive Offenders Act.
Until very recently, Canada was not in a position to honour its
obligations on the international level. The parliamentary
secretary has said so, eloquently moreover, and I must
congratulate her on this.
She reminded us that this hundred-year-old legislation was
completely unsuited to the realities of modern extradition.
We are seeing an international consciousness, in which the Bloc
Quebecois is playing a large role, and an increasing interest in
the concept of international tribunals. As we speak, there are
97 conflicts going on in the world. Amazingly, of this number,
94 are intra-state, meaning that they do not extend beyond a
country's borders.
In such conflicts, there are people who commit crimes and leave
their own country for another, hence the need for extradition
legislation.
I have forgotten to mention the two lawyers who briefed me. I
am thinking of Mr. Lemire, and of Mr. Roy. I wish to thank
them. I think they are seated nearby.
I thank them for the serious and professional manner in which
they shared their knowledge with me. I cannot claim to have
attained their level of expertise, but I did my best.
The bill we are discussing, Bill C-40, will combine two statutes.
It will amend the principle of extradition, producing a
completely modern bill.
In times gone by, extradition was associated with a list of
offences for which an individual was sought, here and in other
countries. This posed a problem because there were certain acts
that were considered offences in Canada, that were not
necessarily viewed that way in other countries.
Nowadays, I understand that, with this bill, there is less
interest in maintaining lists, which necessitated legislative
amendment to make the changes; we are now going with the legal
concept of comparable offences. The offence we are talking
about must carry with it a sentence of a minimum of two years. I
think we will find this flexibility very useful in the future.
Another very important aspect of the bill is that it clarifies
the roles of the department, that is, the minister, and the
various courts. We are talking about a regular court of law
here, if my notions of law are correct. This in fact was one of
the exam questions when I was interested in such things.
The difference between a court of law and an administrative
tribunal—I imagine all my colleagues could slip me the answer,
but I am going to continue with my own theory—is that a court
of law does not administer a specific law, but responds to a set
of laws.
As my example of an administrative tribunal, I cite the Régie du
logement and the CSSTs. The Immigration and Refugee Board is an
administrative tribunal, which administers a law, and therefore
may develop a certain specialization.
It establishes a division of labour, a specialization under
which the law establishes very specific and defined roles for
the judges whose prime responsibility will be to ensure that an
offence against Canada has truly occurred.
1700
They will also have to assess the evidence, and that is
extremely important. As you know, justice is not served if the
evidence cannot be objectively, intelligently and impartially
assessed.
Then there is the Department of Justice. Our fine and
attractive Minister of Justice will, under all circumstances,
have to make a decision on the extradition process. She will
have to ratify—I say ratify, but members will understand that
in each case that is submitted to her—
I was surprised to learn of the level of intimacy in
the process. I thought it was automatic, until Mr. Lemire and
Mr. Roy told me otherwise. In a way this is reassuring, because
it means that political authority is more than just political
authority.
The human authority must take a look at the extradition
issue. Why? First, to make sure that when a state asks for the
extradition of an individual who is guilty of an offence both in
Canada and in his country of origin, his extradition will not
expose that individual to abuse or to violations of his rights
as a human being.
I was very pleased to learn during a briefing that a provision
of the bill specifically provides that when human rights are
violated, when the individual committed a punishable offence
that carries a two-year jail term, and when it is feared that the
individual will be discriminated against for motives that are
prohibited under the Canadian law and charter, then the minister
can reject the request for extradition.
We are, referring to possible violations based on
political beliefs or marital status.
One's sexual orientation is not included in the legislation, but
I know we can count on the parliamentary secretary to agree to
an amendment that the Bloc Quebecois will table in committee.
The minister will have the option, when she is concerned
about the conditions surrounding the extradition of an
individual detained in Canada, to oppose such extradition.
Again, the great merit of this bill is, of course, that it
updates a century old act that was rarely amended, but it is
also that it targets the new forms of crime.
Crime is a national reality, but it is also an international one.
This is something that reaches across borders. In fact, until
recently, and I am not sure it is not still the case to some
extent, Canada was considered a haven for organized crime.
Mr. Speaker, you know—not from personal experience but from what
you heard—how organized crime works. There are usually three
phases. I had this explained to me at the time when I was taking
a special interest in this issue.
In 1995, the late Daniel Desrochers, a 13-year old boy, was the
innocent victim of a car bombing a few feet away from my
constituency office in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. This incident
reminded us of the battle going on in the underworld, especially
between two biker gangs, namely the Hell's Angels and the Rock
Machines, for control over the drug market.
Following this incident, many of my fellows citizens and I felt
the urge to find out more about organized crime.
I then came to realize that it is not only a national but also
an international phenomenon.
1705
I also came to realize that organized crime works in stages or
phases. The first stage consists in taking control over a
territory. That makes sense. Members of criminal organization
need a place to operate. These places meet very specific
criteria.
There is no organized crime to speak of in the third world.
There is a lot of corruption of course. There are drug
traffickers, and several countries come to mind. But organized
crime as we know it in Canada and Quebec is only possible in a
country of plenty.
There are a number of prerequisites for organized crime to
flourish.
First, this requires a state with a highly complex legal system.
We already know how many people hold that the charter of rights
adopted in 1982, without the consent of Quebec, constitutes a
hindrance in the battle against organized crime, because in a
bureaucratized state with a highly complex legal system there
are fundamental guarantees, over and above sections 7 through 14
of the charter, which slow down the judiciary process.
Of course, like my colleagues on the other side of the House, we
in the Bloc Quebecois would not like to go back to a time when
there were no judiciary guarantees and a person could fall
victim to wrongful acts by the judiciary without much hope of
redress.
A brief aside: some of my colleagues, militants from way back,
who lived through the 1970 October Crisis, when habeas corpus
was suspended, know what it is to live with discretionary
imprisonment, hateful as that is, and other judiciary abuses.
This is why it is so important to have judiciary guarantees in a
constitutional state.
Now, back to the bread and butter of the issue, or perhaps I
should speak instead of sheep and lambs, to please the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert. Our thanks to her, incidentally, for
the excellent lamb she offered us this morning. I wish our
Liberal colleagues could have been there too. It brought our
thoughts back to the battle this hon. member has been waging,
along with some of her colleagues, for instance the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
The excellent lamb served reminds us of the Department of
Agriculture's need to review its policy on scrapie.
That said, back to organized crime. Organized crime runs in
stages, and this is a national reality. With cross-border trade,
the figure of $20 million laundered has become an international
reality.
The first stage of organized crime is gaining control over a
territory, and the second, almost inevitably, is money
laundering. I do not wish to go too far off-topic, but what does
it take to convince this government—
I would like the parliamentary secretary to look up and take
note when I ask her to work very hard within her caucus to
convince the Minister of Justice—a woman who is generally easy to
get along with, except when she is speaking about constitutional
law and can get carried away—to take $1,000 bank notes out of
circulation, because it leads directly to money laundering.
If we were to do a little informal survey of our colleagues, of
those in the gallery, of listeners, and ask how many of them had
a $1,000 bill on them, with the notable exception of yourself,
Mr. Speaker, there would be very few. That is why the $1,000
bank note lends itself to money laundering. Canada is the only
country to have this denomination.
The first phase, therefore, is taking over an area. The second
is money laundering.
The third, and most important, is the phase which, according to
a certain number of analysts, Canada is well into, in which the
underworld invests in legal and illegal activities. This is a
cause for concern.
1710
It is a cause for concern because, without strong legislation,
and of course Bill C-40 is a step in the right direction, legal
and illegal activities can cover quite a range.
For example, the underworld is now investing in luxury items
such as jewels and fur coats, and, we have to be honest,
casinos. And of course, the drug culture provides it with its
main source of income.
Crime is a very real concern.
Just recently, perhaps a year and a half ago, I believe we
passed an extremely memorable milestone, providing our society
with more weapons for the battle we must wage against those on
the other side of the law. That milestone was the passage of
legislation on gangs, and I believe I made a modest contribution
to this.
Of course, it will always be the government that gets credit for
its enactment, but I believe that, without the political
pressure brought to bear and the arguments made daily by myself
and my Bloc Quebecois colleagues from Montreal and other
regions, there would not have been such early awareness of the
necessity of legislation against organized crime. That
legislation created a new criminal offence, and provided both
police forces and judges with additional tools.
For those who may have just joined us, Bill C-40 is a bill which
combines two existing laws with the intent of bringing the
extradition process into the present day. not only bringing it
into the present day, but also simplifying it, by not only
listing the criminal offences but also including the concept of
offences punishable in both states.
As we know, Canada has extradition agreements with 49 states, as
well as being a signatory of eight multilateral conventions. If
there should happen not to be a treaty with the states
concerned, it will be possible to proceed on a case-specific base
and the law will allow extradition without a treaty, using the
process of a designation or agreement specific to a particular
case.
Another quite interesting clause in the bill concerns the
Immigration and Refugee Board, which comes under the
jurisdiction of the Minister of Immigration, the hon. member for
Westmount—Ville-Marie.
It may happen within the extradition process that the person
involved is also claiming political refugee status. We know how
the refugee status determination process works. It is a pretty
rotten, petty and patronage-ridden system, in my opinion.
Essentially, however, how it works is that it allows a person
from another country to come into Canadian territory and apply
for political refugee status under the Geneva Convention, asking
for asylum in Canada.
Generally, it is because we have reasons to believe that, in his
or her country of origin, the person could be persecuted on the
basis of political or religious beliefs. It is also increasingly
frequent to grant refugee status to people because we fear for
their physical integrity and are concerned that they might
suffer some kind of reprisals because of their sexual
orientation.
Since Canada is a signatory to the Geneva convention, refugee
status is determined by first accepting a person into the
country. An officer meets the person, who fills out a personal
information card. The officer then determines if there is a
credible basis for the claim.
1715
If so, the person is allowed to continue the process. The file
is then referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, more
specifically to the Convention Refugee Determination Division.
The board makes decisions. It makes its decisions through an
accelerated process, or with two board members being present.
We hope, of course, that the process will change. It must
change, if only because, on average, it takes three years to
reach a decision. This is rather unbelievable, considering that
if a person comes here as a political refugee, it is because
that person is in trouble. The process should be a lot faster
than it is.
What happens when a decision takes a long time, when it takes
three years? As the member for Jonquière pointed out, people get
used to being here. They learn the language, they find a job,
they develop relationships with their neighbours and they become
part of our society.
Sometimes, after having been here two or three years and having
integrated themselves to the Canadian society, they are told
they are not recognized as political refugees. They must then
leave the country. Some will argue there are ways to appeal the
decision. It is true, particularly through the federal court.
But in reality, the decisions made by the Immigration and
Refugee Board are very rarely overturned at the appeal level.
The process is somewhat inefficient, but with Bill C-40, it will
be possible to consider that a decision made by the justice
department on refugee status determination will also apply for
the purposes of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Some may construe this as interference. I for one think it is a
sensible approach and that it makes sense, for the sake of
consistency, that a decision made by the justice department on
refugee status determination be binding and apply to the
Immigration and Refugee Board.
I hope that we will dispose quickly of Bill C-40, which is not a
very controversial bill. I heard our colleagues from the Reform
Party express a number of grievances, and there is nothing wrong
with that. They probably had more to do with the cost of
implementing the legislation.
This is a concern—I was about to say an obsession—but I
personally believe that the real challenge, as events will show,
should lead us to consider and thoroughly review the Immigration
Act. We can agree that twho here is work to be done in that
area.
Yesterday, the Minister of Immigration, a woman always perfectly
in control of her faculties, who is not prone to anger and
verbal abuse and always speaks in a soft voice whether the
moment is grave and solemn or festive, told us “We will be
tabling legislation shortly”.
That is not enough. We must know when legislation will be
tabled. It is especially important since the Trempe commission,
masterfully presided by the former deputy minister of
immigration in Quebec, concluded in its report that the
immigration system did not make any sense. If there is one
priority we must raise as members of parliament, that is it.
The Trempe report asked that a distinction be made between
people who come here as immigrants, who chose Quebec or Canada
often on the basis of professional skills, and those who come
here because of hardship due to the international situation or
to problems inherent to their country of origin and seek
political asylum. The Trempe report suggested that a distinction
be made and that a protection agency be established.
1720
There is a problem that must be mentioned, that I think people
should be aware of. I am sure the parliamentary secretary knows
what I am referring to. The Immigration and Refugee Board is a
patronage haven.
I could give examples. I do not know whether it parliamentary to
do so? I will take a chance. There is Mrs. Robic, the former
Minister of Immigration for Quebec, for instance. That is a good
appointment, because she was the Minister of Immigration. She
was a Liberal, of course, but nobody is perfect.
There were other appointments to this Immigration and Refugee
Board, including the president of Alliance Quebec.
We are hearing a lot about Alliance Quebec. The shock waves can
surly be felt all the way out in Edmonton. He was appointed. Is
there anyone that can say to the House that the former president
of Alliance Quebec was familiar with international law? Was he
interested in immigration? Of course not. That has nothing to
do with his ability to learn. I would agree, but could we not
leave patronage behind, and follow the example of the Parti
Quebecois, which will have an objective procedure and where the
candidates chosen will be career public servants?
That was what the Trempe report called for. It recommended that
there be a process whereby people with an interest in immigration
law and international law and who would make it their career
would be appointed to the public service, by competition. Is
there anything nobler than a career in the public service of
one's country?
This is the direction that should be taken. For my part, as a
member of parliament, I hope that we move rapidly to adopt such a
process. Let me say right off that the government will be able
to rely on the enthusiastic, not to say ardent, support of the
opposition, particularly yours truly.
Those are my comments. I will conclude by saying that we will
support the general philosophy behind the bill, as well as its
economic impact. Certainly, there will be a few amendments,
because we have a dual objective.
First, we want to attain sovereignty, as everyone knows, but our
more immediate goal is to improve government. That is what the
opposition is all about. It is arduous work, with no end in
sight. We will work in committee to improve the bill. We will
move a few amendments but, on the whole, this is a worthy bill
that we will support.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus and address Bill C-40 at
second reading. On behalf of our justice critic, the member for
Sydney—Victoria, I would like to announce that our caucus is
supportive of Bill C-40. We are pleased to see many of the
changes being introduced in terms of trying to harmonize a piece
of legislation that was spread out over many other pieces of
legislation in the past which made it very cumbersome and
complicated.
I do not have nearly as much to say about this as the previous
speaker from the Bloc. This is not my area of expertise. I will
stick to the very limited, narrow subject matter here, the
proposed legislation.
The legislation is intended to bring our extradition procedures
more in line and closer to those of other countries to prevent
Canada from becoming some kind of safe haven for international
criminals, those who do not benefit our country.
We want the international co-operation and the tools at our
disposal to send these people where justice will be served.
1725
One of the major problems with the current legislation, as
pointed out by the parliamentary secretary, is the difficulty for
Canada to meet its international obligations in any kind of an
international criminal court or tribunal. It is ironic that
Canada has been one of the most outspoken countries in trying to
create such an international court and to oblige people to serve
or to attend that international court, but under the current
system we cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body. Obviously
that is a limitation that needs to be corrected.
We feel that Bill C-40 is necessary and beneficial because the
current legislation does not deal with things like the newer
high tech crimes and is not flexible enough to accommodate changes
arising from the globalization of criminal activity, for instance
the drug trade, organized and transborder crimes. The increased
mobility of individuals makes the need for effective extradition
relations with other countries more important than it ever has
been in the past.
When we look at the two acts that covered extradition in the
past, the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act, both
were enacted in the 1800s, 1877 and 1882. That kind of
legislation is even older than my colleague from
Sackville—Eastern Shore and obviously needs to be revisited,
updated, reviewed and amended. We are glad to see Bill C-40
coming in to do that.
The NDP caucus is in support of measures to prevent Canada from
becoming a safe haven for fugitives, as I mentioned. We are in
favour of enhanced human rights protections and safeguards for
persons who are the subject of an extradition request. I believe
Bill C-40 will further enhance those human rights issues
associated with the extradition.
The NDP caucus is in favour of provisions for extradition of
persons to international tribunals and courts, as mentioned. We
feel that is one of the big benefits. Obviously we are in favour
of modernizing the act to deal with high tech and organized
crime.
One of the things we have reservations and concerns about is
with the changes being proposed that would permit the
admissibility of a broader range of types of evidence in cases of
extradition hearings. We have some serious reservations and
concerns with the powers to exclude certain persons from
extraditions hearings. We believe Bill C-40 will augment the
ability to exclude certain types.
The non-publication of evidence provisions has been dealt with
in Bill C-40. We have some serious concerns about that. Most
fundamentally, the NDP has a very grave concern that safeguards
regarding the imposition of the death penalty are not really made
binding. We have not really ever addressed whether Canada is
going to promote or allow the extradition of criminals to places
where they could stand and be executed where the death penalty
still exists. We do not believe Bill C-40 has really addressed
that adequately and that is one of the serious reservations we
have.
I would like to add a small anecdotal piece of information. I
do not know a great deal about the legislation and the history of
extradition, but I know in my own riding of one case that I have
been working on at great length trying to get a woman extradited
to the United States so that she can stand trial for the murder
of her husband, a Canadian citizen and a member of the Canadian
military who was murdered in Florida. The grand jury of the
United States stood for eight minutes before indicting this
person that there are probable grounds for this person's standing
trial. I can attest to how frustrating it is to try to get a
person extradited from this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When next this bill
is before parliament, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will
have approximately 15 minutes.
[Translation]
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of the House,
the government should overhaul all its programs for young people,
in order to evaluate their impact and performance, and in order
to ensure that all funds for such programs maximize young
people's chances of joining the labour force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to seek the
unanimous consent of the House to pass over to my colleague, the
hon. member for St. John's West, the closing five minutes that I
have available to me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to be able to
raise an issue that is particularly close to my heart.
The motion I am putting forward today reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
overhaul all its programs for young people in order to evaluate
their impact and performance, and in order to ensure that all
funds for such programs maximize young people's chances of
joining the labour force.
In the coming minutes, I will explain my reasoning on the merits
of this motion.
We all agree that the government is already paying out a
significant amount of money in various programs for young
people. According to government documents, the Youth Employment
Strategy alone “makes effective use of investments of over $2
billion the Government of Canada has set up for young people”.
That is quite a sum.
The Youth Employment Strategy combines 250 programs. Funding
for these initiatives comes from some 12 departments, including
Human Resources Development Canada, Industry Canada, Heritage
Canada and a number of others.
Sometimes several departments share in the funding of a program.
This can create an accountability problem. There can be a
whole slew of programs, but they have to be effective, and the
resources must not be wasted.
Since there is no central body controlling all these programs,
they are not readily available to young people. There is a web
site, but the government must make it much better known. A
number of young people simply do not know about all these
programs.
I want to assure all the members of this House that my motion
does not arise from a preconceived idea that all the programs
are bad and useless. Far from it. My aim is to ask the
government to ensure that the money intended for young people is
spent on effective and useful programs. Young people deserve
it.
As parliamentarians, our duty is to insist on an accounting and
to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' money is put to good use.
In order to focus today's debate, let us take the Canada student
loans program as an example.
I am sure all MPs are aware of this program, which affects
nearly 60% of post-secondary students. The Canada student loan
program, or CSLP, represents a huge investment by the
government.
1735
The Department of Human Resources Development estimates that the
CSLP has given out loans of some $15 billion to over 2.7 million
Canadians since its inception in 1964. Also according to the
department, the average debt load in 1990 of a student in a
four-year program was $8,700. In 1998, they expect the debt load
to be some $25,000. In other words, student debt has grown by
187% in Canada in only eight years.
Can we talk of effective investment when so many Canadians are
struggling under the weight of overpowering debt even before
they start their career?
The government has taken a number of steps to try to ease young
people's passage from their studies to the workplace.
I am sure its intentions are good, but the results are sometimes
dismal.
Let us take a look at the current youth employment situation. In
August, youth unemployment was at 14.5%, almost double the
Canadian rate. In my province of New Brunswick, youth
unemployment is close to 25%. In 1996, 17.7% of welfare cases in
Canada were single parents under the age of 24. These figures
certainly suggest there is a problem.
Part of the problem is that, in recent years, the transition
between school and work has been made more difficult by the
limited job creation that had taken place since the 1990-91
recession.
This has particular impact on those who do not have the training
or skills currently in demand on the job market.
Young people in the high risk group, those who did not complete
their secondary education, are particularly affected. There are
simply no jobs for them. Most of the jobs available for low
skilled workers before them have been made obsolete by
technological innovation or have moved to a third world country
where labour is cheap.
As for young people in the average risk groups, those with
secondary education but no post-secondary education, they have
seen their diploma lose much of its worth.
More and more employers are looking for people with
post-secondary education for positions that, less than one
generation ago, would have gone to high school graduates.
And young people at low risk, those with post-secondary degrees,
need something to help them make the transition to the labour
force, to help them get their first job.
Traditionally, the unemployment rate among young people goes up
when the economy is weak. However, what we are now seeing is
that young people are not taking advantage of the benefits
created when the situation improves. During the last economic
recovery, the gap between the unemployment rate of young people
and that of adult workers did not close as much as in earlier
cycles.
Whether they are studying or not, young people are
over-represented in atypical jobs, that is to say part time,
temporary, fixed rate, piecework, or occasional jobs, most of
which are low paying and require few skills.
If society turns a blind eye to the problem, it will have to pay
increased costs because of the number of unemployed workers and
welfare recipients, as well as the inevitable social problems in
a polarized society.
1740
Studies show that long periods of unemployment result in a loss
of skills and permanently alter potential employers' opinions of
young people. Unemployment therefore has an impact on the
present and future contribution of young workers to society.
That is why it is so important to ensure that we supply all the
winning conditions that will help young people join the labour
force quickly.
It is also important not to focus exclusively on the
government's role. Businesses have also produced good results
in the fight to help young people find jobs.
In 1997, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce published, with
the Canadian Youth Foundation, studies and profiles of very
successful programs. I invite members to take a look at these
documents.
I want to quote a few excerpts from one of these publications,
which I find particularly relevant to our discussion:
Big numbers encourage big responses, including massive
government-let “wars” against the latest social scourge. Even in
these times of fiscal restraint, the first response to a big number is
still to throw some money at it.
When the youth employment crisis is seen in terms of people
rather than statistics, the response changes.
Programs become humanized and
flexible when it's understood that real people never fit into
the categories of those oh-so-precise charts and graphs.
Programs also become more unassuming without the illusion that
there is true path, one best solution for all young Canadians or
for the nation. Together, these elements help make these
people-centred programs particularly effective.
The government often announces with great fanfare its
initiatives for young people. Just think of the millennium
foundation announced in the last budget. In spite of a $2.5
billion budget, only 7% of Canadian students will benefit from
millennium scholarships. Is this a really good investment? I
doubt it, particularly when you consider that this government
cut $17.3 billion from transfer payments for health and education.
Would the money not have been made better use of by the
provinces, who have had to cut funding to colleges and
universities, thus forcing them to raise tuition fees.
Without these cuts to the transfer payments, perhaps students
would be less in debt and less in need of these millennium
scholarships.
Members will have figured out that these are hypothetical
questions I am asking. I have not done enough research to
assess the impact of all these measures. That is why I moved
the motion now before the House, moreover. If we do not have
the means as individuals to assess the need for, and
effectiveness of, over 250 government programs involving
billions of dollars, it is absolutely necessary for someone to
do this.
In conclusion, youth unemployment and underemployment rank
foremost amongst the major social and economic questions facing
Canadians as this century draws to a close.
I also realize that these matters cannot rest solely in the
hands of governments. The private sector must also determine
what it can contribute to solving these problems, and what
approach it must take to give today's and tomorrow's young
people the chance to play an active role in the Canada of today
and tomorrow.
1745
However, what we can do today is to urge the government to take
the first step.
If the government absolutely wants to help improve the situation
for our young people, then it will not mind reviewing the
existing programs. Nor will it mind sharing the results of these
reviews with members of parliament and the general public .
Lastly, the government will not hesitate to consult and involve
all stakeholders, including young Canadians themselves, and to
take advice from them.
Young Canadians are waiting for us to show some leadership. Let
us not disappoint them.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to enter this debate on this very important subject.
I am especially happy to have a chance to outline the efficiency
and the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's youth
programming.
There is no question Canadians have a right to expect the
best possible performance from Government of Canada
investments. Certainly young Canadians are looking for results.
They deserve and expect results.
I assure the member for Madawaska—Restigouche that the
monitoring and evaluation of the Government of Canada's youth
programs is already underway. When it launched the youth
employment strategy the Government of Canada instituted a
comprehensive strategy to monitor the performance of its programs
for youth and to evaluate their impacts.
Even more assuring, our youth employment initiatives are
producing concrete results. Thousands of Canadian youth know
from their own experience that the Government of Canada's youth
employment strategy is working to help them find work.
I want to explore these two important points one issue at time.
The first is a matter of program monitoring. As I mentioned, the
Government of Canada's youth employment strategy has a built-in
system to measure the strategy's success. This system includes
participant follow-up surveys, longitudinal studies and
individual program evaluations.
I will do a quick review of some of our key findings to date. I
think they will be found very important. Youth internship
Canada, a program that provides wage subsidies to employers who
create work experience opportunities at home and abroad for
youth, has a stellar record. This program will create 25,000
internships in the current fiscal year. Each year Human
Resources Development Canada conducts follow-up surveys with
former youth internship Canada participants to assess the results
of the program.
The most recent survey was in November 1997. That indicated
that 88% of former project participants are now employed or have
returned to school. The youth service Canada program has an
equally impressive record. This initiative provides funds to
community organizations to help higher risk youth find their
place in the workforce.
This year some 5,000 young people will receive youth service
Canada support.
The 1997 survey of the youth service Canada program found that 6
to 12 months after taking part in a youth service Canada project
85% of the youth are employed or have returned to school, and
that is very impressive. Incidentally, this year Human Resources
Development Canada will be going ahead with an in-depth
evaluation of youth service Canada.
The Government of Canada student summer job action has enjoyed
similarly positive results. Like other youth programs, this
initiative is reviewed periodically through follow-up surveys
with young Canadians. The 1996 survey found that 55% of
placements provided work experience in the student's area of
study and, just as important, we discovered that 69% of employers
would not have hired a student without the Government of Canada
subsidy.
Findings like these demonstrate that we are on the right track.
But let me assure my hon. colleague this government is not about
to rest on its laurels in this matter. In addition to the
measures I have already outlined, all federal departments and
agencies involved in all our 250 youth programs under the youth
employment strategy are required to conduct and report on the
evaluation of their youth employment strategy initiatives.
1750
To give members some sense of our commitment to quality of this
program let me profile just one department. Human Resources
Development Canada alone is conducting an interim formative
evaluation as well as a final summary evaluation of its youth
employment strategy initiatives. The formative evaluation is
already in progress. We should be able to report back to this
House on its findings by the fall of next year.
Equally valuable, all these review activities are being
incorporated into longer term evaluations of the Government of
Canada's youth initiatives. Human Resource Development Canada
has developed an evaluation framework to integrate the results of
individual departmental evaluations into an overall evaluation of
the youth employment strategy. This massive undertaking will be
completed within two years.
Even the newest initiatives such as those developed for youth at
risk are going under the microscope. These initiatives which
provide work experience and assistance to young people facing
multiple barriers to employment are currently being assessed as
part of the comprehensive evaluation of the youth employment
strategy.
I point out that all the major initiatives under the youth
employment strategy grew out of our experience with early youth
programs such as youth internship Canada and youth service
Canada. Our new programs are built around feedback and
refinements to these pioneering programs.
Clearly there is no shortage of opportunities to identify any
program weaknesses, nor is there any lack of willingness to
address them properly should problems be found. That is
important to note.
The fact that our youth programs enjoy such remarkable ratings,
however, reinforces that Canada's youth employment strategy is
meeting is commitment to help young Canadians find their way in
the world of the job market. Yet we are still not content that
enough is being done. That is why this year we added the
Canadian opportunities strategy as well.
The Canadian opportunities strategy provides Canada study
grants, Canada education savings grants, the Canadian millennium
scholarship fund, tax measures for interest on Canadian student
loans, part time student and child care expenses as well as more
funding to university granting councils. We are making these
investments in young Canadians because we know there is no better
investment in the future. Learning is the absolute best
guarantee for better jobs in the new millennium and the new
economy. I was happy to hear the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche acknowledge in his speech early on that
the government is making an enormous investment in our young
people.
If there is any lingering doubt about this government's ability
to maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force
let me bring my fellow parliamentarians up to date on our overall
success. I point out that youth service Canada has helped 12,000
young Canadians in three years. Youth internship Canada has
given work experience to more than 89,000 young people since
1994. I also point out that student summer job action had over
75,000 participants this last summer. I finally point out that
approximately 100,000 work experience opportunities are provided
each and every year. Anyone looking for evidence of the
effectiveness of the Government of Canada's youth employment
initiatives need look no further than these figures.
Do not get me wrong. This government is always receptive to new
ideas about ways to improve our youth programs. We regularly
consult with our public and private sector partners who help us
to implement the youth employment strategy. Partnerships and
collaboration form the cornerstone of our approach to youth
programs and are the primary reason for the strategy's
overwhelming success.
I do not want the hon. member to conclude that we are not open
to his input and support. We are. I hope he will recognize that
his motion is not necessary. This government is already doing
its job of ensuring that our programs to put young people into
jobs are fulfilling their mandates. That is in the best
interests of young Canadians and all Canadians and in the best
interests of this great country of ours.
1755
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the new youth
critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to speak today on
the important issue of young Quebeckers' access to the labour
market.
The motion before us today will shed some light on the two
injustices the federal government is committing with its overall
program for young people.
First of all, the Liberal government is unfair to young
Canadians because its first goal is not to maximize the
efficiency of its youth programs, but to maximize its visibility
in the eyes of young people. The government is also unfair to
Quebec and young Quebeckers, because of the unfair distribution
of money among the provinces.
Also, the motion will demonstrate the lack of openness shown by
the Liberal government, which will once again object to any
public review of its programs in order to conceal their
unfairness.
Before explaining my point of view any further, I will read the
motion by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche we are debating
today:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
overhaul all its programs for young people, in order to evaluate
their impact and performance, and in order to ensure that all
funds for such programs maximize young people's chances of
joining the labour force.
In theory, youth programs are aimed at creating jobs. Granted,
but how many?
Nobody knows. What everybody knows though is that these programs
are a blatant intrusion into the provinces' jurisdiction. They
create more duplication, which is bound to harm our young
people.
This motion brings to mind one of the basic rules the auditor
general quotes every year. In order to assess the effectiveness
of government programs, we must know what their total budget and
measurable goals are, and be able to measure progress in the
field.
If these requirements are not met, taxpayers cannot know whether
their money is wisely invested. This is a situation common to
young people in Quebec and Canada as a whole.
In reality, if the Liberal government is refusing to assess the
impact of these programs, it is not because it ignores basic
accounting rules.
It is because the first objective of the government's youth
strategy has nothing to do with employment for young people.
According to the Minister of Human Resources Development
himself, the ultimate objective of that program is to, and I
quote “continue to work to keep our country strong and united”.
He said that in the House of Commons last year on October 2,
1997, in a formal speech in response to the Speech from the
Throne. It is now clear that the strong and united country he is
trying to impose on Quebeckers will be brought about by
attractive and highly visible programs.
The millennium scholarship fund is a very good example of a
program that completely disregards the real needs of the young
people of Quebec, of a program where visibility is the priority.
First, it duplicates the Quebec loans and bursaries program. On
average, Quebec students already have a smaller debt load than
their counterparts in the rest of Canada: $11,000 compared to
$25,000. In Quebec, tuition fees are about half what they are in
the rest of Canada: $1,700 compared to 3,200$. Moreover, Quebec
is the only province to award bursaries on the basis of
financial need. The others only give loans.
But, as the prime minister said in this House, the visibility of
the program is not negotiable, no matter what choices Quebeckers
made collectively concerning their education system. This is a
totally unacceptable situation, but there is worse.
Where is the money to finance such encroachments in areas of
provincial jurisdiction coming from?
The budget surplus was reached by robbing the provinces of
transfer payments, for education in particular.
1800
The Quebec government must now impose cuts of several hundred
million dollars on its education system. This is one of the
tangible results of federal budget cuts.
In other words, the federal government takes the money from one
pocket and puts it in the other one, after stamping it with the
Canadian flag. It has absolutely no concern for the provinces,
which are responsible for consistently managing their education
system as a whole, or for young people who gain nothing from
being used by a government willing to do anything to promote its
strong and united nature.
The money for these highly visible programs also comes from
employment insurance reform.
The fund surplus, which will reach $20 billion by the end of the
year, was achieved mainly by excluding many young people from
entitlement to benefits.
In fact, since these limitations have
been imposed, thousands of young Quebeckers have had to go on
welfare. The numbers speak from themselves: the
recipient-unemployed ratio went down from 72% in 1990 to 26% in
1997.
Now, more young people than ever before pay premiums, while only
one young person out of four is entitled to benefits if faced
with unemployment. But do they receive this money back in the
form of active measures, as the government claims?
Let us compare the amounts.
The government wants to spend as it pleases the $20 billion
surplus that will accumulate this year in the employment
insurance fund whereas, for the same year, it plans on spending
$391 million for all youth programs, which is less than 2% of
the amount taken from workers and businesses who pay EI
premiums.
In short, the federal government is hindering the academic
training of our young people by contributing to the
deterioration of the education system in Quebec. It makes our
young people poorer by forcing them to go on welfare instead of
making them eligible for EI benefits. And, to make itself look
good and to promote a strong and united Canada, it fills
university and city newspapers with ads praising its youth
strategy.
As suggested in today's motion, it is high time the House of
Commons as well as Canadians and Quebeckers examine the real
objectives of the Liberal government's cynical youth strategy.
The figures are just as disturbing with regard to Quebec's fair
share. Of the $391 million earmarked for federal youth programs,
Quebec gets only $63 million. That is only 16% of the allocated
funds, even though we represent 25% of the population.
Moreover, effectiveness is not the ultimate goal for these
programs. The federal government has already recognized that the
provinces are in a better position to meet this type of need.
That is what led the Liberals to give Quebec full responsibility
for manpower training before the last federal election.
If it was fine just before the election, why is the federal
government now rejecting any opting out by the provinces, which
could then keep on working in close co-operation with those
affected by these programs?
First of all, a significant reduction in EI premiums would
result in the creation of tens of thousands of jobs. As it
stands now, small and medium size businesses are penalized by
the regressive payroll taxes of the federal government. The end
result is that the way we are financing the EI system not only
kills jobs by increasing the cost of labour, but kills a great
deal of them in the businesses that tend to create most jobs.
I used a few examples to show that a good youth strategy is not
necessarily a strategy that will give the most visibility to the
federal government.
I support motion M-213 because it would help us make a clear
distinction between these two fundamentally different goals.
Such a review would demonstrate once and for all that the
federal government has lost touch with the young, because of its
obsession with visibility.
1805
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the problem of youth unemployment has been one of the more
persistent difficulties in Canada in recent times. Though I have
problems with the motion before us, I commend the member for his
attention to a very pressing need in our country.
I want to begin by saying that my overall concern with the
motion introduced by my colleague from the Progressive
Conservative Party is that it seems to share the Liberal Party
assumption that the problem of youth unemployment can be fixed by
improved government programs.
Whether we are talking about increasing the size of government
programs or merely restructuring and re-focusing those programs,
the motion as it stands assumes that specific government programs
are the answer rather than focusing on government policies across
a much broader front, policies that would create an environment
in which the problem could be solved by young people, by
educational institutions and by employers themselves.
That such a broader view of this problem is needed was confirmed
last week by the study entitled “Hire Expectations”, released
September 30 by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
In that survey young people did not view government programs as
the key to solving this problem. This was from the mouths of the
young people themselves. They did not regard government programs
as the key.
On the contrary, of the various groups regarded as being
responsible for addressing the youth employment issue, government
ranked lower than the self-reliance of youth themselves, the
efforts of schools and also behind job referrals from family and
friends. In other words, job help by way of government programs
was way down on the list.
The majority of youth surveyed, almost 60%, said that finding
work is primarily their own responsibility. Less than 10% of the
respondents said that it is the government's responsibility to
make sure they have work.
The point is not that students should be left to fend for
themselves, but rather that our students are smart enough to know
that direct intervention by the government as urged by the
present motion is not the answer.
These young people in this extensive study were clearly saying
that they do not expect the government to be directly—and I
underline that word—involved in the job creation or job search
process. Rather, in their view the government's task is to
create an environment in which young people have the best chance
possible of finding meaningful work.
Most Canadians would say that the government has failed on this
score. As the authors of the study “Hire Expectations” put it,
“Despite numerous programs targeting young workers, youth
employment rates have not significantly dropped in the last 20
years, which suggests the need for new approaches to the issue”.
Where should the government focus its approach? The government
needs to lower payroll taxes, as a beginning, on small business
and create a more tax friendly environment for small and medium
size businesses. Incidentally, a reduction in employment
insurance premiums would be a good place to start. Instead of
raiding the EI surplus, as the Minister of Finance has intended
to do, a reduction for these small businesses would be of great
assistance to the problem of youth employment.
The study also revealed a genuine willingness on the part of
small businesses to hire young people. Business owners
emphasized that they were not looking simply for skills, but also
for enthusiasm and a willingness to learn. This willingness to
hire young people is especially true of new firms which are
likely to have twice the proportion of young employees compared
to older businesses.
I believe that tells us something very significant. It tells us
that if the government could bring itself to create an
environment in which business start-ups are attractive, this
would have a tremendous positive effect upon employment
opportunities for youth.
But 40% of these small businesses also said that payroll taxes,
which are a barrier to hiring, are far too high. Small business
is not presently confident that the government is intent on
lowering the costs associated with hiring someone. They do not
believe there is any genuine effort to do that.
That is what the study “Hire Expectations” had to say about
the broader economic environment in which jobs are created for
young people. It also had some needed advice for governments.
At the most basic level this study warned that government should
avoid make-work programs. Such schemes, they said, affect only a
small minority of youth and have more political value than actual
substantive value for young Canadians looking for work.
1810
The level at which government has a genuine contribution to make
is in the role of facilitator, encouraging communication among
educators, employers and youth. I want to emphasize again in the
context of the present discussion that this must-read study,
“Higher Expectations”, urges greater facilitation by
government, not direct intervention by government.
A good example of an area in which facilitation is needed is in
the area of education. The study revealed a lack of interaction
between schools and businesses, and youth feel that school does
not prepare them for the transition into the workplace. They
report experiencing a form of culture shock when they begin their
working life. They indicated that they wanted a better
understanding of the workplace before they leave school,
university or college. This suggests that a greater role could
and should be played by co-op education in Canada. We could talk
about apprenticeship programs as well.
Co-op education and other kinds of measures have proven to be an
effective means of smoothing the transition from school to the
workplace.
While I cannot support the motion as stated, I thank the member
for raising this very important issue in the House.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of
this motion. I would like to congratulate the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche for bringing forward what I think is a
very thoughtful and reflective motion which needs to be seriously
addressed by this House and certainly by the Government of
Canada.
It was surprising to hear the government member across the way
say earlier that this motion is not necessary. I was very
surprised to hear that.
Is it possible that they believe the motion is not necessary
because it would actually be an embarrassment for the Liberal
government to go forward and, as this motion states, overhaul all
of its programs for young people in order to evaluate their
impact and performance and in order to ensure that all funds for
such programs maximize young people's chances of joining the
labour force? Who could disagree with that?
It was very surprising to hear the Reform member and the Liberal
member actually speak against this motion, which I think is
something that could well be done and from which we would get a
lot of benefit.
In looking at this motion I think it is incumbent upon us to
actually look at what is the situation for young people in Canada
today. Unfortunately, the facts present a very gloomy picture
for young people.
When the government announced its youth employment strategy in
February 1996 there were 2,065,000 youth who were employed. But
the StatsCan figures for November 1997 show that there were
2,039,700 young people who were employed. That is a drop of over
26,000.
In fact youth unemployment is at 16.8%, up from 15.7% in
February 1996. As we all know, those are only the official
numbers. The real numbers are much higher.
Since February 1996 when the government first announced its
major youth employment strategy, and we heard today a very rosy
picture about that, the reality is that 48,300 more young
Canadians are out of work. It is not a rosy picture at all.
Even according to the CIBC, one of the major banks in Canada,
about one in four youth, aged 15 to 24, has never held a job.
That is more than double the rate in 1989.
How can government members stand here today and tell us that we
do not have a crisis? This motion should be supported today
because there is a crisis in this country for young people.
In December 1997 the proportion of the youth labour force with
no job experience was 24%. That is up from 9.8% in December of
1989. There are so many statistics that it is just
mind-boggling. What the trend really shows is that throughout
this decade there has been a continuing drop in the participation
of young people in the labour market. There is persistent high
youth unemployment. There is just no getting away from it.
As well, there has been growth in involuntary part time
employment. At the same time there has been a decline in real
wages.
1815
What has often been characterized as the recovery from the 1990s
has basically bypassed young people. They are still, to a great
extent, very marginalized and do not have the kinds of
opportunities that we hear in the rhetoric and the propaganda
coming from government members.
We have to ask the question of how we address youth
unemployment. We in the NDP believe that two key issues need to
be addressed. One is through education and the second one is
through a comprehensive youth employment strategy.
If we agree—I think all members would agree—that education is
the key for our young people then we also have to ask why the
government is attacking post-secondary education. As my
colleague from the PC who presented this motion pointed out, the
attack and the assault on post-secondary education is simply
unprecedented.
The Liberal youth strategy must be seen in the context of the
massive cuts to post-secondary education in Canada. It becomes
just an empty promise for the government to say that it wants
young people to get jobs. It knows they have to go on to
post-secondary education to obtain jobs, but it does not really
care that tuition fees have skyrocketed, that student debt has
gone up and that university and colleges are less and less
accessible. That is the reality facing young people when it
comes to education today.
Even Human Resources Development Canada tells us that 45% of new
jobs by the year 2000 will require post-secondary education. The
reality is that the ability of young people to get into
post-secondary education is more and more limited, particularly
for low income Canadians.
Since 1995 the federal Liberals have cut $1.5 billion from
federal funding for post-secondary education. Since 1980 the
Liberal and Conservative governments—we have to put this on
record and look at the historical context—have cut federal
funding from $6.44 for each dollar of student fees to less than
$3. We see the real decline in support for post-secondary
education.
Tuition fees over the last 10 years climbed by 240%. What an
absolutely shocking statistic. Tuition fees in Canada have
reached a national average of $3,100. That is higher than the
average tuition fees of publicly funded universities in the
United States. The story goes on and on. Student debt is up
from $13,000 in 1993 when the Liberals took power to $25,000 now.
Student bankruptcies have increased 700% since 1989. The picture
is very grim. Given this situation, one would hope that the
government would be assessing and reviewing its commitment to
support post-secondary education.
What did we have yesterday? The Minister for International
Trade attended the second annual Canadian education industry
summit and actually talked about further industrialization and
privatization of post-secondary education.
What is quoted in the Toronto Star today is the minister
saying that education is an industry and that Canada needs to
improve its marketing. This is how the government sees education
now. It does not see it as a social investment, not as something
that we provide as a societal responsibility to our young people,
but simply as a marketing strategy, as something that the private
sector wants to get its hands on.
The minister said that we need to identify our markets, develop
and promote our products, differentiate them from those of our
competition, and create business plans to bring all those
elements together. Does this sound like we are talking about
post-secondary education? It sounds like we are talking about
the private sector to me, but that is what one of our cabinet
ministers is saying.
The second part of a comprehensive strategy is a youth
employment strategy. We have to point out that $129 million of
the $345 million allocated to youth job creation programs go to
short term summer jobs. There is no emphasis on the long term
investment that needs to be made for young people. Virtually
none of these programs are targeted at economically and socially
disadvantaged youth.
1820
Research has shown that to help such young people the programs
must be targeted specifically and be designed to meet their very
unique needs. Unfortunately these programs do not exist. Most
of the Liberal youth programs benefit the most highly educated
young people, which cynics say is more about cheap labour than
real opportunity.
What should be done? We can learn by example from my province
of British Columbia where our premier, Premier Clark, has made a
personal commitment to make youth a priority. We have an
extensive summer job program. We have environmental youth teams
and environmental youth groups. We provide first jobs to
graduates in science and technology.
There is entrepreneurial training for young people. There are
thousands of jobs that have been created in B.C. crown
corporations. In fact the B.C. government's record when it comes
to supporting post-secondary education has been superlative in
comparison to what the Liberal government has done. In fact our
B.C. minister has called for a national tuition freeze on
national grants program.
In conclusion I say that this is a very good motion. It
deserves our support. We need to make that commitment to the
young people of Canada, to evaluate the Liberal programs and to
expose the fact that they are not helping the young people of
Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have about three
minutes remaining in the debate. The hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Louis has three minutes.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the three minutes that you have granted me I would
like to address some remarks related to those of the MP for
Rosemont. I heard his diatribe. I do not know how long he
spoke. It seemed endless. All of it was laced with the usual
contempt for everything federal: all the faults in Quebec are as
a result of the federal government. It is due to the federal
government that unemployment is very high in Quebec. It is due
to the federal government that the economy is so bad and so many
youth have to find work.
Amazingly enough, I never hear a word about the provincial
Government of Quebec. I never hear a word about the problems
caused by wanting to have one referendum after another.
An hon. member: Referendum fever.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Referendum fever. In October 1995
we went through a searing referendum, a divisive issue which put
Quebec on hold for months at a time before, after and certainly
during.
Mr. Walt Lastewka: It scares business away.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It scares business away like
nothing else. What does the Quebec government, the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have for a solution for young
people and for older people? It is: “Let us have another
referendum”. Then when they lose the next one, the third one in
a row, they will say that is not enough, that the people have not
spoken, and they want to have another one.
The member has the cheek to come here, paid by federal taxes
supplied by people in the maritimes, British Columbia, Alberta
and throughout Canada to give him a platform to rain on the
federal parade and blame everything under the sun on the federal
government.
I spent nine years in the National Assembly of Quebec and I
remember the debates. It is almost like a time warp. It is the
same old thing. Everything under the sun in Quebec that was
going wrong was due to the federal government. If it rained it
was federal rain. If it was cloudy it was a federal cloud.
Anything that happened was federal. If one was sick it was due
to the federal government. If people were not employed it was
due to the federal government.
I am sick and tired of this diatribe. What we need in Quebec is
another climate to realize that a lot of people want to take
their time to accent quality of life and the things that matter
to them such as education, social issues and work. If more accent
is put on those things in Quebec rather than referendums and the
separation of Quebec, we would all be better off.
1825
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are down to the
last five minutes of Private Members' Business and the mover of
the motion, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, has given
the hon. member for St. John's West his last five minutes.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for giving me this
five minutes to address an issue which is probably the most
serious one that faces the province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
and probably all of Canada.
The resolution simply asks in a very non-partisan way to allow
the House of Commons to assess, to evaluate and to appraise the
250 different programs to help young people get involved in the
labour force in Canada.
I congratulate the NDP member for Vancouver East who had some
excellent suggestions on how we should go about this. Obviously
education is key to what any of us would understand as creating a
higher employment rate in Canada.
The member for the Reform is a little misguided and could easily
support this resolution. We believe, as does the Reform member,
that there are better ways. Probably we could in a non-partisan
way finds ways to help young people in Canada. The Liberal
member obviously thinks that everything they are doing is
absolutely perfect. That is just simply not the truth or the
reality in Canada today.
There are a lot of good programs. I read a memo from the
Minister for Human Resources Development the other day. It
mentioned a whole range of programs and some with success ratios
that are very high, like the youth internship program. Some 88%
of the people who took part in that program are either presently
working or are back in studies.
That is a very successful program, but we wonder if all the 250
programs handled by several different departments are as equally
successful. We believe a review should be done. The review
could be very simple. It could be done by an all party
parliamentary committee of the House, or it could be done by an
outside person who is non-partisan, just to find out if these
programs are getting to the people who really deserve them.
Some of the programs are excellent. There is no question that
in St. John's West this summer we had over 1,200 students working
in student programs. The Government of Canada saw it as a high
priority to make sure there was student employment so that some
students could actually save money toward their education.
The training allowances for adults and young adults are very
meaningful. In our office in Newfoundland the highest ratio of
phone calls that we get is from people trying to get assistance
in training and to get back to school. They have come to the
realization that without better education there is not much
chance of a better job or a better life.
We do not know what is the success rate of all the other
programs. We would like to know and the Government of Canada
should want to know. If we have 250 programs obviously some
might not be as productive and some might not be targeted to the
right groups.
Another concern in our caucus is that if there is 250 programs
spread over six or seven different government departments, what
are the administration costs? If $2 billion is being spent on
250 programs with several government departments, what are the
administrative costs? Is it 10% or $200 million? Is it 30% or
$600 million? We want a review to find out how much money is
spent on administration and to make sure that as much money as
possible is directed to the three groups of Canadians the
programs are designed for.
When it comes to the labour force basically there are three
groups in Canada. The first is young Canadians working within
Canada who are contributing to our country, their provinces and
their family. Many of these workers were assisted by programs
such as the Canada student loans program and training allowances.
Many are also so heavily in debt that for many years they cannot
contribute fully to the Canadian economy. They will not be able
to buy homes and new cars and start their own businesses. Maybe
there is a better way to set up the student loan system to allow
Canadians to get an education, to work here and not be so heavily
in debt.
Another group of young Canadians are those who are working
outside the country. Why are they working outside the country?
It is because of the lack of opportunities in Canada, the high
tax rate and those kinds of problems.
Another group I want to touch on, especially in Newfoundland, is
the vast number of young Canadians who are living unemployed in
Canada. Often they are undereducated and living on temporary
assistance programs from the government which really become
permanent assistance programs from their parents and family.
I had a call today from one of my constituents who contributed
to the EI surplus and is now on welfare. That EI surplus could
be used to help get Canadians back to work, which was the
original intent of the EI program.
1830
I am delighted to be able to second this motion to ask for a
non-partisan evaluation of these 250 government programs and I
seek the unanimous consent to make this motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud, on behalf of my hon. colleague for
Halifax West, to speak on behalf of the 223 Volvo workers and
their families in Nova Scotia.
The other day in this House the Minister of Industry said the
closure of the Volvo plant has nothing to do with Bill C-11, the
auto tariff reduction bill, and that the plant is not moving to
Mexico. Obviously a memory lapse seems to have happened on the
cabinet side.
I want to quote some editorial sections. They are very true.
The company plans to assemble S70 and V70 model automobiles, the
same automobiles currently built in Halifax, at a plant at its
bus division that it recently purchased for $70 million in the
U.S. and Mexico. There is a sense from everybody in Nova Scotia,
especially those workers and families, that Ottawa played a key
role in sacrificing the Halifax plant's future when it decided in
the last round of world trade talks to lower auto tariffs from
18% down to just over 6%.
In the past, the Halifax small plant was valuable to Volvo
because it gave the firm the right to import cars to Canada under
duty free under the auto pact. Yet Ottawa made no contingency
plans for the possible impact of a tariff reduction on a major
employer here. All we ask is that someone go down there and
assist those workers in that regard.
Volvo states the Halifax plant is too small for the 8,000 car
units it builds every year, yet it wants to start up a 1,000 car
operation in Mexico. It does not make any sense, but that is
what it is doing.
Volvo states that it is going to build buses in Mexico. It just
purchased a bus plant. I ask Volvo and I ask the minister what
does that do to Prevost Car Inc. and Novabus in Quebec? What
happens to the 1,400 workers in Quebec?
Volvo plant workers are very disappointed with the federal and
provincial government response to their crisis. Right now the CAW
union along with members of the board of commerce and whoever
else will go are planning a trip to Sweden to try to get Volvo to
change its mind and do something for the workers.
As all Canadians know, after the recent Swissair fatal crash off
the coast of Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia, the world got to know
exactly what Nova Scotians are made of. We are compassionate.
We are caring. We are giving. We are salt of the earth people,
as all Atlantic Canadians are. Why would a profitable company not
want to stay here and utilize that valuable workforce to meet its
needs?
The workers and I are very disappointed with a memo I received
from sources within Volvo about the severance package given to
these workers. It says anybody who criticises this measly
severance will be terminated from the severance package. They
will have no access at all. What kind of a democracy do we live
in?
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf
of the 223 great, hardworking workers of Nova Scotia and their
families. I only wish that this government would think before it
enacts laws that destroy the jobs and the economy of Nova
Scotians.
1835
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 9 Volvo announced
it was shutting down its vehicle assembly plant in Halifax on
December 18, 1998.
The federal government is acutely aware of the importance of
this plant to Halifax. On October 5 the Minister of Industry
wrote to Volvo to express the disappointment and regret of the
Government of Canada with its decision and the loss of the 223
jobs.
The closure is part of Volvo's worldwide restructuring strategy
and the plant is not being moved to Mexico as the NDP questioner
implies. Volvo has acquired a Mexican bus and coach manufacture
which will be the primary business. I understand it will also
produce a limited number of vehicles, around 1,000 for the local
market.
Volvo's Halifax plant built vehicles for the Canadian market and
never sold those vehicles in Mexico. Volvo's plans for Mexico
are completely unrelated to the closing of the Halifax plant.
Closing of the Volvo plant has absolutely nothing to do with Bill
C-11 and obviously the member does not understand what is in
C-11.
I wish to point out that the federal government has done its
part by ensuring that the business climate in Canada is
favourable and conducive to the continued prosperity of the
automotive assembly industry. The fact is that Canada remains a
very competitive location for vehicle manufacturing.
Volvo itself remains a major transportation company in Canada
with $1.8 billion in annual sales and more than 4,600 employees
across the country.
The Government of Canada will continue to work with the local
organizations in the Halifax region, with Volvo and with the
Canadian Auto Workers, CAW, to find a solution.
Mr. Walter Fitzgerald, the mayor of the Halifax Regional
Municipality, has formed a task force which includes the province
of Nova Scotia, the Greater Halifax Partnership group, the CAW,
and the federal government through ACOA to explore alternative
uses for the facility and to ensure that the port of Halifax is
in Volvo's future transshipment plans in North America.
We will continue to support all stakeholders seeking a positive
solution to this announced closure.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 6.37 p.m.)